To wonder how anyone thought what was happening in Gaza was ok?

@CaterhamReconstituted
The Good Friday agreement has worked. And while there are still some miles to travel in relation to community relationships, the younger generation such as my nice and nephew have grown up in peace and embrace and enjoy their dual identity.

Peace in the North didn’t come about because everyone suddenly started hugging each other and integrating. The schools for instance remain almost entirely segregated by choice. It came about because of structural changes to key institutions and mitigating the micro-aggressions that reflected disparity of esteem for the minority tradition. It came about through dedicated intermediaries and by brave people gritting their teeth and engaging in dialogue.

What ideology? The integrity of the UK, which is inviolable? How about giving a piece of London, or Surrey, or Manchester away to a foreign power? Of course peace is desirable but it must be conditional. The Good Friday Agreement was enormously favourable to republicans. It ensures the future break-up of the UK.

There’s also a question about to whom you award legitimacy. Sitting down with grisly murderers was a craven act of surrender, I would argue.

Northern Ireland is only a referendum away from re-joining Ireland. I want peace yes. But not at any price.

really? So you would have preferred the troubles to continued indefinitely.

I don’t think the conflicts are similar or very comparable but the peace process does demonstrate that peace can be found in what seems to be an impossible situation - when there is a will for peace and compromise.

People like you would prefer every man, woman and child is dead on the streets rather than compromise on their ideology.

Yes, keep this brief, but the Good Friday Agreement was an act of surrender by the UK Parliament. It dismantled much of the security apparatus and British armed presence in return for vague promises by terrorists (who can re-arm in hours if they wanted to), makes it against the law to fly the Union flag for most of the year, released loads of terrorists from prison and means that Northern Ireland is only a referendum away from re-joining Ireland. I want peace yes. But not at any price.

Hamas are not interested in peace, they don’t wage war just because there isn’t a “better way”. They are violent to their core and want to see Israel extinguished.

I believe it was an act of surrender that makes the break-up of the Union even more likely. But this is risking going off-topic somewhat and is probably one for another thread!

@CaterhamReconstituted act of surrender? By who? I think we should stop here because it will derail the thread but I think your comment suggests you don't know enough about the situation to make such a controversial statement like that. Thank god there were good forward thinking leaders on both sides at the time otherwise the conflict would still be going on today and many more lives lost and ruined. I get the feeling you support the politics of the gun rather than dialogue? Apologies if I'm interpreting your responses wrongly.

The point about Northern Ireland terror groups was in response to the idea that you will always have terror groups, some of which splinter from main groups, unless some political demand is met.
I'm not sure what poster that mentioned northern Ireland you are responding to but if it was me, my point was that there will always be splinter groups who want to continue with their cause through the gun and the bomb they are impossible to negotiate with but if enough people know there is a better way through peaceful means their numbers and support will dwindle. There are still terrorist organisations today in NI but their reach and threat is insubstantial

The point about Northern Ireland terror groups was in response to the idea that you will always have terror groups, some of which splinter from main groups, unless some political demand is met. I was pointing out that this can’t work with Hamas (unless the whole world becomes fundamentalist Muslim and all the Jews are killed). It was also worth quelling this particular line anyway - you often encounter the view that Israel should negotiate with Hamas just as we did with the IRA. I agree with the points made about the psychology of occupation though.

Irish republicans, even extremists, do not hate the English as a race, as neither do loyalists hate Irish people as a race. They have different and conflicting political objectives. Over the years of bloodshed they may have grown hate-filled towards certain groups but they don’t have genocidal ambitions against any race. If 12th July parades are an expression of hatred, it is against republicans, not Irish people. The conflict is political and tribal.

Yes, I don’t think we should have negotiated with republican terrorists and I agree that is an unusual position to take as the Good Friday Agreement is much praised in my country. I believe it was an act of surrender that makes the break-up of the Union even more likely. But this is risking going off-topic somewhat and is probably one for another thread!

You can argue about whether we should have negotiated with them (I don’t think we should have)

What kind of a person would say this after 20 years of relative peace. the negotiations were with the political arm of the IRA anyway.

That just says it all really. It’s a put peace first approach. Everyone still agreed that they would still try to reach their goals but through peaceful political means. Obviously I’m putting it in the simplest, shortest way possible.

clearly you think killing people and fighting indefinitely is the answer.

What you say makes sense in my opinion, and I agree people see Israel as needing to uphold higher values while considering Hamas’s behaviour to be beyond the pale.

However I do not entirely agree with what you say here:
If Hamas surrendered - actually gave themselves up, as well as handing over the hostages - the war would stop

They would most likely never surrender, but do anything rather than surrender.

But apart from that consideration, the war would only stop in as far as the Palestinians would have no arms, no state, and be under the subjugation of Israel.

That might feel like ‘no war’ to Israel - while the Israeli government and IDF and militant settlers carried on settling, shooting, and imprisoning, Palestinians - but would certainly carry on feeling like war of a kind to the Palestinians.

I think you've completely missed the point we were trying to make. The comparison to the IRA was only in the context of how terrorist organisations generally function and are organised not that both groups goals were the same or comparable.

They don’t hate English people as a race
Oh my god yes they do! And unionists hate Irish people. Have a look at the footage of July 12th marches and bonfires and the effigies and flags they're burning

You can argue about whether we should have negotiated with them (I don’t think we should have)
Unusual position to take given it brought peace to the island for 20 years and counting. The negotiations were also mainly with Sinn Fein the political arm of the IRA and now the main nationalist party in Northern Ireland and a serious contender for the ruling party in Ireland.

@CaterhamReconstituted Calling the IRA "rational actors" in your efforts to defend Israel is an interesting line to take.

Really excellent summary @Babyboomtastic !

There is no proper comparison between Hamas and republican terror groups in Northern Ireland. The IRA are terrorists, but they have a specific political goal: the unification of Ireland. This goal is an entirely reasonable one, even if you don’t agree with it. You can argue about whether we should have negotiated with them (I don’t think we should have) but it is the tactics of the IRA that are morally reprehensible, not their stated aims. They don’t hate English people as a race and they don’t want to see them exterminated. They are fundamentally rational actors.

Hamas and other jihadist groups, on the other hand, are not bound by earthly concerns. They genuinely believe it is a religious duty to murder Jews. So their stated aims (which they’ve been honest about) are morally reprehensible, as well as their methods. It is not about statehood. The Palestinians could have had a state many times by now. And if Hamas were really interested in that goal, the 7th October has made that less likely than ever.

Thanks @Kindatired you explained it way better than me

It shouldn’t really matter when that sort of language is used it. Can why it is being used be understood on an intellectual level, I think yes. Can war be used as a justification for dehumanising another group, no I don’t think it excuses the consequences. The risk to innocent civilians when using dehumanising language during war is arguably much greater.

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

I think for me when I say "they're terrorists" it isn't because I'm not angry with them or accept them and that I don't think they have a responsibility in releasing the hostages and contributing to the end of the conflict but more that I recognise as a terrorist organisation they don't have a central command, they are not necessarily coordinated, they likely have splinter groups that will do the opposite to what the Hamas leaders may agree to in negotiations. I know in Northern Ireland when ceasefires were agreed over the years there was another group that would splinter off and would carry on regardless. It is extremely difficult and trying to defeat them and pin a ceasefire on trying to control that will mean the war goes on indefinitely. I think Israel needs to change their approach, if it's not too late, the only way to defeat Hamas and those aligned to their ideology is to give people a realistic alternative, build trust with the ordinary Palestinian that there is a better way than Hamas to secure a future for your children but that has never been Israel's way so the cycle will just continue.

@statsfun I think it’s because terrorists are by definition terrorists. Their grievances overlap with the oppressed group they purport to represent. They act as disruptive agents to the status quo when a political vacuum has developed over a long period of time.

The demise of one terrorist group is just an opportunity for one of their rivals to fill the gap. In the six counties of Northern Ireland they had at least 6 republican terrorist groups.

The people of Gaza are literally starving and in no position to get rid of Hamas.

When long term militarisation of a territory is in place, there is a synergy of oppressive actions at play. For instance, a security checkpoint takes on a different flavour if it manned by a person in the uniform of an occupying army who has been born in another country who is standing on your ancestral lands and belongs to an army with a shoot to kill policy for stroppy teenagers. When they are disrespectful, it generates deep emotions in the most reasonable person.

In NI the police force was disbanded and demilitarisation happened. Internment without trial had already ended. The electoral situation had already been reformed. The micro aggressions of flags, parades, language, self identification were addressed.There are still terrorists but they do not have traction.

Now go back to Gaza and think how you would feel about 1%of your community being killed, twice that maimed, starvation , desecration of graves and places of worship, homes and hospitals razed to the ground and the IDF posting gleeful selfies. How would you feel? Do you think that a ground offensive in Raffah will really end the terrorist threat to Israel? Or do you think that the all young men who have experienced these traumas will just say “Welcome be the holy will of God”?

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

has anyone accepted Hamas here? Marching in the west will make no difference to getting rid of Hamas. They cannot be pressured politically from here. It would be a complete waste of time. Also many people see that The Palestinians were oppressed before Hamas. They will continue to be oppressed if Hamas is weakened now. And another terrorist group will grow in it’s place unless Palestinian’s see a future where have their own state and are able to live good lives.

Yes it is common for oppressive states to use dehumanising language against an group of people to justify committing acts of violence against them. We have seen it happen now and many times throughout history. It always seems to end very badly

I don't mean being appalled at the atrocities Hamas have committed against Israel: most people have rightly condemned that regardless of how they see the rest of the war.

I mean I still don't understand why people whose main concern is Palestinians aren't really, really angry at Hamas for the consequences of their actions on Palestinians. Why they aren't pressuring our government to help remove them. Why don't the placards on the marches for Palestinians demand Hamas to stop the war and step down.

If Hamas surrendered - actually gave themselves up, as well as handing over the hostages - the war would stop. There was even a deal offered early in the war for the leaders to leave Gaza for other Arab countries with no repercussions. Which Hamas refused.

Hamas deliberately sacrifice Gazans for their own benefit all the time. Their entire strategy seems to be to increase the suffering of Gazans.I'm not even convinced it's for ideological reasons: the leaders - of Hamas and other factions - have become billionaires entirely by making Palestinians suffer.

With October 7th, they have pushed back the possibility of a 2SS by at least a generation. That's the future of a whole generation of Palestinians blighted - by Hamas.

I see people saying they don't like Hamas, and will be happy when they are gone. But no actual anger or push to get rid of them. Why?

I think it may be something to do with expectations. Israel is a recognised state, and has Western values, so people expect them to behave benevolently, since that is our expectation of our own states - and so they are really angry when Israel causes harm. But they have no expectations of Hamas so they somehow don't get angry even when they cause huge harm to the Palestinians.

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

It makes no logical sense!

I think you're absolutely right that it's a question of what level of civilian casualties Israel deem acceptable in order to reach legitimate targets and goals.

I thought it was interesting in the article on AI targeting someone posted the other day that the software allowed the users to configure how many civilian deaths were acceptable to take out an identified target - and that this number has changed at different times during the war.

I don't think the 'acceptable loss' number has to be zero. But most people would agree it has been too high for bombing, and much too high for aid supplies (it's obviously not a program in this case, but the same concept will apply in any strategic calculation).

In the end, it's a judgement call about where that number becomes unacceptable - given all the circumstances and considering the decision-making process - and that's what the ICJ will take years figuring out from a legal standpoint. Because it isn't obvious.

I disagree with you that countries should stop supplying arms to Israel. I'm sure others on here agree with you. (And some would think that even if Israel had achieved a miraculously low number of civilian casualties)

I think it's not necessarily helpful or accurate to see only two possibilities: deliberate genocide by Israel (which is unproven) vs @CaterhamReconstituted 's view of unfortunate but entirely unintended and unwanted civilian deaths (which is at odds with reality). Logic suggests that the IDF is, at least broadly, pursuing Hamas targets. But the key question is what level of civilian casualties they deem acceptable in order to reach those targets. The conduct of the war so far suggests that a high level of civilian casualties is tolerated, because the IDF places little value on Palestinian life. Whether or not their animating motive is to kill civilians, they know that the deaths are the inevitable result of their actions and they continue anyway. This is, essentially, intent (as distinct from motive). It also appears clear that there is a significant level of collective punishment, hence the deprivation of aid and essential supplies. In both cases, this is morally reprehensible and legally culpable and no civilised country should be supplying arms to Israel at this point.

Ok. We’ve probably mined this particular seam. I think I’ve explained myself. People can always look at the thread if interested.

Hope in what? My ability to understand your point?
I don't agree with your explanation doesn't mean I don't understand it

I’m really not. I’m making a specific point that should be understandable (I still have hope!)

And further more using that language about innocent civilians at a time of war is probably the most dangerous time to use it for those civilians because you are dehumanising them so making it easier to reconcile killing them