In wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley

But if they do it quietly without fanfare, just choosing one bank over another or one hoover over another how would Israel know? They wouldn't. It's the anti-Israeli public statements that are the issue, obviously.

I already said upthread there was a marked difference in the information provided by MSF in its Afghanistan pages and the Gaza pages. The Gaza pages are markedly more political. The Afghanistan pages are much more neutral. I did actually wonder why part of the reason shocking facts (like 97 female aid staff banned, only 3 remaining and they all have to wear burkas) are less prominent is because they don't want to risk access, so have to be careful about their public statements. Even now their access for female staff is almost entirely gone.

Presumably there would be no benefit to Hamas infiltrating MSF aid staff in Afghanistan? I can't imagine they want to challenge the Taliban and stretch their resources. They seem quite single minded about annihilating the Israeli state and Jews so I can't see the benefit to them of doing this?

@whatwouldafeministdo

There is nothing to stop the individual workers boycotting whoever they want in their personal life.
Well not according to Israel's regulations

So do you support these aid agencies also being banned from Afghanistan though? Even without publicly condemning the Taliban (which I think should be allowed by anyone) you're convinced they're all Hamas supporters so they shouldn't be operating anywhere no?

I think it's unlikely any aid agency doing that very publicly would be allowed into Afghanistan by the Taliban just as Afghanistan don't allow female aid workers to work. I think that's horrendously wrong, and an enormous and horrific human rights abuse, to ban the entire female sex from working (and education and medical care and maternity care and speaking and looking out of windows), but it's obviously within the Taliban's power to do that given they're doing that.

So it wouldn't be a very clever thing for any aid agency to very publicly criticize the Taliban via press statements saying how awful the Taliban are etc if they want access to provide aid in Afghanistan. Whether it's right or wrong is immaterial. The Taliban control the country and control access to the country.

There are plenty of other people who can do political activism. There is nothing to stop the individual workers boycotting whoever they want in their personal life.

But if you want to help the people threatened by a bear, poking the bear isn't the clever move. If you're more interested in poking the bear quite publicly than directly helping the people threatened by the bear, then that's your priority but you then can't claim that helping people directly is your only or even main objective. It's clearly not.

You're very close to getting the point then

I would if I were the Taliban regime. I

Putting words in my mouth again I see. Is this still irony? You really live reading words that aren't there it seems. I fail to see how seeing NGOs concern about the safety of their workers given Israel's record of murdering Palestinian aid workers is "supporting Hamas". Retract that or I'm gonna report you for repeated personal attacks as stated. Thanks for showing that your previous hyperbole wasn't in fact irony you were just accusing people of not giving a shit about Afghanistan.

To be clear, I don't expect humanitarian aid or welfare for civilian from A TERRORIST ORGANISATION just as I don't expect Isis to do any bloody good deeds either. That doesn't mean I shouldn't expect a state to uphold international law and human rights and that I can't support peaceful boycotts and political pressure for those statues to comply with international and human rights law

• because my bar isn't on the floor doesn't mean I support Hamas. I don't know how I can say any clearer I don't support a terrorist organisation for you to stop throwing around that baseless accusation.

Absolutely.

I find the whole "if this is a genocide it's not happening fast enough" line that's trotted out on here utterly distasteful. Absolutely misinformation again. The ICJ has found the case of genocide plausible and advised measures. Thats not "no evidence". The lies combined with the pithy joke that if they wanted to commit genocide they'd do it quicker is really gross.

It is beginning to get a bit surreal on here.

Israeli armed forces have killed 579 aid workers to date. They have been blocking aid for months so this is not a new tack.

As an occupying force, they are legally obliged to provide adequate aid. This was already not happening before the deregistration of existing NGOs.

There are many testimonies from volunteer surgeons who had repeatedly been denied entry and had medical equipment arbitrarily confiscated. Victoria Rose and Graeme Groom are two UK surgeons - try Googling what they have to say.

Israel simply does not want to allow aid in.
That is why we need to leverage as much as possible. It’s not rocket science.

Let me ask you a question.

Is the International Criminal Court anti-Israel because it has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crimes and crimes against humanity?

So an agency or it's workers can't support the legal and peaceful route of boycotting a state that's in breach of international law by your standards? Would you feel the same about aid agencies being denied entry to Afghanistan for supporting peaceful protest against the Taliban regime?

And the International Criminal Court? I guess it's biased too is it?

The knots you must tie yourselves in to justify this, it must be very mentally exhausting.

You're suggesting that Israel let in aid agencies that may be supporting Hamas without any checks or safeguarding at all. To just take at face value what they say is true, even if acting against Israel in other ways? They'd be bonkers to do that. How is that not supporting Hamas?

What do you think Hamas need to do to demonstrate that they are not harming mothers and babies in Gaza? Not using them as human shields?

Tell me what you think Hamas need to do to help improve the situation for civilians and for maternity care.

The UN is not a neutral organisation. Hamas headquarters were uncovered directly beneath the UNWRA headquarters, powered with electricity from their building.

Gaza is a tiny area. If Israel had wanted to commit genocide, they could have achieved that in a matter of days. There is zero evidence of genocide, it is simply a misuse of the word intended to demonise a defensive response that any other country would have adopted in the wake of a terrorist attack that literally decimated their population.

But it's an effective tactic. Attack, start a war, refuse to surrender, then make an accusation of genocide after the response.

What has that got to do with allowing politically active anti-Israeli organisations into a very security sensitive site?

You know the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu right?

If Israel requires aid agencies to be neutral it wouldn't be demanding they sign up to non-neutral political positions. Boycotting while not neutral is a perfectly peaceful way to protest an injust government.

I never said Hamad doesn't it human rights either did I? Thats you inserting words that aren't there or being ironic again? Unsure. If you reread you'll see I spoke about Israel ignoring human rights as in that's a reason people boycott Israeli products. As far as I'm aware Hamas don't export any products we can boycott?

As far as you're obviously concerned Hamas can do no wrong

Huh? They're a terror organisation. Is this irony again? Cos at this point if you accuse me baselessly of supporting a terror organisation I'm going to start reporting it as a personal attack.

Why for example, can someone not give aid in Gaza because they support boycotting Israeli products because of their disregard for international law and human rights?

Are you seriously suggesting Israel should allow politically partisan aid agencies who are already acting against Israel’s interest into a hugely security sensitive war zone?

Who's annihilating who here?

It is Israel who are committing genocide according to the United Nations.

I have read the registration requirements and I've obviously come to a different conclusion to you. I do think aid agencies that show anti-semitic bias are more likely to work with terrorists, yes, than those who don't.

Can you not understand why - given the EXPLICIT aim of Hamas is to annihilate Israel - that Israel requires aid agencies to be neutral? Boycotting Israeli products isn't neutral.

How can you say Israel ignores human rights but not Hamas? Hamas doesn't believe gay people should live and love freely, but they can in Israel. It's all so very one-sided.

As far as you're obviously concerned Hamas can do no wrong and Israel can only do wrong. I don't believe that either side in this conflict is unilaterally 'right'. There have been human rights violations on both sides. I also think there is a lot of misinformation on both sides, and it's almost impossible to know what the truth is, although it's often quite clear what the truth is not.

😂😂

Advanced Search is your friend if you wish to assess whether any poster tediously and repeatedly expresses their dislike of feminist women on Mumsnet

If you want to have any chance of salvaging any sort of positive perception of FWR I would suggest you give up.

Hamas terrorists don't care about pregnancy or uniting women, they pull on heartstrings with PR stories like this to fulfil their own aims.

There are still aid organisations operating in Gaza that have been transparent with the identities of their workers. The ones that didn't supply the names pose a threat to Israeli security so weren't allowed.

This playbook is always the same. Hamas hide terrorists/weapons in schools/hospitals/aid trucks/ambulances, then profit off the headlines that focus on Israel's response.