Rafah bombings (Edited by Mumsnet)

Egypt= Peace
Lebanon=Iran proxy
Gaza= Iran proxy
Saudi Arabia =Peace
Yemen=Destroyed drones attacking Israel
Syria=Destroyed drones attacking Israel

If Israel keep going the way they are going they will never achieve peace with their neighbours. Oppression is not a way to achieve peace

The writer (singular) served in NI,

I wouldn't listen to the opinion of any British army personnel that served in NI.

Agreed. The Israeli Govt have no choice if they want to save their state from another Holocaust. Sad but true.

Not to mention causing civil wars and unrest in neighbouring countries that took them in.

Huh, they didn’t cause the civil war in Lebanon, but Ariel Sharon saw an opportunity to go into Lebanon and massacre refugee camps of Palestinians in Lebanon. But, yeah they caused “unrest” by trying to defend themselves.

https://thejerusalemfund.org/2023/09/sabra-and-shatila-massacre-four-decades-of-unforgotten-tragedy/

You’re cherry picking when they weren’t being peaceful.
Have you heard of the March of Great Return? The peaceful protests against the Gaza blockade in 2008/9 where IDF snipers deliberately targeted and shot around 600 Palestinian CHILDREN? The UN wrote a report on it condemning the shootings as war crimes.

That is one example, I think you need to read the full version of the history of the area. You have obviously been fed a heavily edited version.

You are right. Just kill everyone in Gaza and let settlers take over. You never know, that unborn child might have grown up to be Hamas. We can't take the risk, now can we?

What you mean all the wars, terrorist attacks, hijacking of passenger planes, electing a terrorist government, constant rocket bombardments, building tunnels to harbour munitions under schools, hospitals and residential areas, children trained as would be martyrs in terrorist summer camps, a fundamentalist ideology where killing Jews is something to be celebrated etc etc.

Remember the recording of the phone call where the guy was excitedly telling his mother how many Jews he’d killed which she congratulated him on and the civilians spitting on the broken, naked dead body of Shani Louk being paraded on the back of a truck?

Not to mention causing civil wars and unrest in neighbouring countries that took them in.

Yeah, they really tried that.

Perhaps they need to try actual peace.

NI, Middle East (Iraq?) and Afghanistan were all botch jobs by the U.K., or US and coalition by military standards anyway. Odd the author doesn’t realise this, but if he was a “senior member” in NI some 30-50yrs ago he likely retired in the early 2000s before military experts pointed out the futility and counter-productivity of our military actions in those conflict zones.

He’s probably in his 90s and written from whispering pines care home…unaware his last century heroism had to be cleaned up with diplomatic and political solutions as military force didn’t help and in many cases only delayed the inevitable.

To be honest … they seem to be spreading with or without ceasefires anyway! If Israel’s aim is to get rid of Hamas … they’re not doing a good job at it

Thousands of refugees from Rafah have been pouring into Deir-al-Balah north of Khan Younis severely stretching the water supply there

Hamas “giving themselves up” wasn’t in the original proposal Israel approved prior to Egypt giving it to Hamas, so why would you think it’s unreasonable to not have a term in it that even Israel didn’t put in there? You’re not Israel.

Exactly and to propose that Palestinians try being peaceful is to ignore the many times they already tried that between 1948 and today, and it made no difference. The ethnic cleansing, the apartheid, the persecution, the strangling of their economic capabilities ground on and on.

You really can’t see anything unreasonable in that proposal?

Where’s the bit about Hamas giving themselves up?

Do you not agree that they should?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

There can be no safety and prosperity under occupation.

The PA has been that, but no peace and prosperity for WB and EJ.

Sure. But seeing as it's an opinion piece in the Telegraph I have a fair idea what the broad view is going to be. It's not that it doesn't fit with my narrative, it's that I don't read shite media, I don't have the time, and the Telegraph is pure shite.

Anyway, it's behind a paywall, so I couldn't read it even if I wanted to.

The names of the writers who come up (two names) do not fit the description you have posted. Both are journalists/editors. Maybe the person you are referring to is named further down but as I've said, I can't see because it's blocked by a paywall.

How about doing some marches for Hamas to give themselves up and allow a moderate, democratically elected government with the first duty to their people’s safety and prosperity to govern Gaza and live alongside Israel in peace?

Funny that I haven’t seen any of that from the purportedly pro Palestinian side.

Did I miss them?

Can you spot anything unreasonable in the ceasefire proposal?

Main amendment is to make it clear a ceasefire is happening as the Israeli version only explicitly included what could be merely a pause in the war:

-In the proposal that Israel approved, and that Egypt conveyed to the Hamas leadership on April 26, the two sides would “work toward achieving a sustainable calm” in Gaza after an initial six-week pause in fighting

-But in the Hamas-approved proposal, that term is clearly defined as a permanent cessation of hostilities and a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip.

Which is safer for the civilians trapped in Gaza? A pause and more war, or a ceasefire?

From Robert Clark, director of defence and security at Civitas. Prior to this he served in the British Army for fifteen years, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He feels that there will be no peace while the terror organisation Hamas has the ability to strike Israel. It must be crushed.

Reproducing the article in full as it is behind a paywall.

Israel’s long-anticipated assault on Rafah has begun. The city is thought to contain four brigades of Hamas soldiers, making it the terrorist’s last stronghold in Gaza. The operation is essential to securing Israel’s borders and safety when military operations end. Yet immense international pressure is being applied to Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to force a ceasefire on incredibly unfavourable terms.
We in the West should be in no doubt. Nobody – except for Hamas, and its legions of supporters across Gaza – wishes to see this conflict continue. Everybody else wants a meaningful peace. But this cannot be achieved until the terror brigades are dismantled, and their ability to assault Israel brought to a permanent end.
Only last Sunday, four Israeli soldiers were killed during a Hamas rocket barrage near the Kerem Shalom Crossing – hours before CIA Director William Burns flew into Doha to give voice to US concerns for Israeli restraint and lend force to peace negotiations.
Further pressure was applied by the sudden offer of a ceasefire by Hamas negotiators on Monday, which Israel noted fell “far from” its “obligatory demands”. The operation in Rafah is intended to bring Hamas to the table to negotiate properly, and also to free hostages.
This last gets to the heart of the matter. If Hamas truly wanted peace, and an end to the civilian casualties, then it would accept terms, release the remaining hostages, and renounce violence. That it does not is further proof, if any were needed, that it prefers to fire rockets at Israelis than to protect Palestinians.
Meanwhile on the ground the IDF has moved the Givati and 401 brigades into eastern Rafah, aiming to conduct a limited raid into the east of the sprawling settlement. In an urban area with 1.3 million civilians, and several thousand enemy combatants, it’s hardly a show of overwhelming force and aggression many would have you believe.
That hasn’t stopped the growing chorus of criticism. The US has paused a weapons shipment to Israel, the UK’s own deputy foreign minister has declared that the offensive could break international law, the Belgian prime minister is sceptical of continued trading relations with Israel, and EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell is apparently working on a proposal to limit trade or pass sanctions.
These suggestions are deeply misguided. The assault on Rafah might not destroy Hamas, but it would certainly devastate the remaining Hamas battalions in the region. Their targeted destruction would be a significant step towards peace.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/israel-hamas-rafah-assault-terrorists/

The key difference is that Israel, very reasonably, wants a temporary ceasefire whereas Hamas wants a permanent one.

Then they can gradually spread out across Gaza, take charge again and claim a great victory.

I am not sure what the compromise is here.

A fan of the writers? Not at all, just think that someone with experience of conflicts like this to better placed to give opinions that randoms on MN.

The writer (singular) served in NI, the Middle East and Afghanistan as a long standing senior member of the military so I think he might have a better take on a conflict zone like this than most.

Of course you don’t want to read it, it does not fit with your narrative.

Hospitals in the southern Gaza Strip have only three days of fuel left, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday, due to closed border crossings.

**

It's a good idea I guess if your plan is to rid Gaza of Gazans, one way or another.

Hamas suggested ‘few amendments’?

What were they then?

Anyone would think that Israel were negotiating with a government who’s aim was to protect the safety of their citizens so they can live in peace and prosperity, not a fundamentalist terrorist group who’s main aim is to kill Jews, spend aid on arms and cause as much suffering as possible for it’s citizens to further it’s cause to wipe Israel off the map.

I wonder if one of the ‘amendments’ suggested was to give themselves up?