What would Keir Starmer do if a group of Norwegians supported by the Norwegian government invaded tomorrow killing thousands?

@Auvergne63 many posters have displayed their dislike of Israel and Jewish people, my post was not specific to you, although for you to take it so personally is a question in itself.

You said, and I quote, " you just don't like Israeli or Jewish people". You are indeed calling me antisemitic.
What would you call someone who said " I don't like Muslims"?
What would you call someone who said " I don't like black people"?
I eagerly await your answers.

No need for the snarky patronising response. I asked in my post whether I had interpreted your post accurately far more constructive to explain where I haven't then just throw about insults

@JaneDoeHere i say this sincerely. You are lying. I can also go around making spurious claims that Jewish Israeli children are indoctrinated with racial supremacy if I wanted to. I can also say that the majority of Israeli society dehumanise Palestinians to justify their brutality against them and to justify the collective punishment they inflict on them. I can find videos and sources to back up my claim too. But it's not the majority is it so it would be a lie. The same way your claim is a lie too. Unfortunately in your situation it does seem like you have reached the stage where you have dehumanised the Palestinians and characterised them as almost feral. I think you should take a hard look at your own bias and hate before accusing others.

I’m not lying. It’s well documented that they are trained from a young age to behave that way. It’s a sad truth, many but not all, have been raised to hate. Same happened in 9/11. Still can find it on YouTube if you want a gander yourself. In fact when 9/11 happened it was broadcast on BBC news coverage but then the clip was removed.

Even some of the hostages have said that the houses they were captured had children who were being told to violate nd abuse the hostages too. It’s very sick and disturbing all round.

@Auvergne63

Are you calling me an antisemite? This a serious allegation.

I have not personally called you an antismeite, no 🙄🙄🙄

Honestly. What a nonsensical question.

BTW I get your point on whether Hamas is a real threat and I don't necessarily disagree with you! To be clear: Israel's response is completely disproportionate and Israel is clearly committing war crimes. Hamas did too, but that's no defence.

The thing is it's a numbers game. Each of the missiles Iran sends over costs maybe $50k. Each of the air defense missiles Israel has to send up in response costs maybe $1m (I don't have the exact figures but it's that type of ratio). Israel doesn't have an unlimited stock of air defense missiles. They do currently have allies that will continue to provide them to them but the cost is mounting. This is one take of course and there are a lot of threads to this, and the more I talk to people about it the more I realize how little I know. And yes, Israel has nukes, god help us all.

What I do know for certainty is that the only people who are gaining anything from this is a small group of old men desperate to cling to (or gain) power. And none of them care about the civilians involved.

So am I right in interpreting your long post as boiling down to if you are an innocent civilian living in a country that doesn't have good defences or a government that cares about its citizens you are fair game to be killed by other states?
Some of us don't see this as Palestinian, Isreali, Lebanese etc they see it as innocent human beings who have a right to life and a right to be protected regardless of where they live and that is why there are international humanitarian laws to protect all citizens not just those who live in states that can protect them.

"I agree that it's empty words. Unless they can do something to bring Iran into it who have enough cheap, inaccurate missiles to send barrages over to Israel until Israel runs out of their much more expensive defensive missiles. Oh wait.."

Which means Iran is a threat, not Hamas.

Even then, how realistic a threat is Iran? Israel have far more powerful allies as the " cheap barrages" so far have demonstrated.

Not to mention that Israel has nukes which Iran doesn't.

Even when Iran does acquire nukes, it could never use them as it's arsenal is inferior to those of Israel and it's allies.

I agree that it's empty words. Unless they can do something to bring Iran into it who have enough cheap, inaccurate missiles to send barrages over to Israel until Israel runs out of their much more expensive defensive missiles. Oh wait....

This is why I say Hamas doesn't give a shit about the people of Gaza. They're collateral damage in provoking the bigger fight.

But of course Israel's disproportionate reaction is only helping Hamas in that respect.

Because this is what it comes down to. A numbers game. Israel has a lower death toll because they invest in protecting their citizens, Gaza, Lebanon have higher death tolls because the terrorists ruling their countries don’t care and want a higher death toll.

But retaliation on civilians for a war against the government of the country those civilians live in exactly why we're talking about war crimes and proportionality. This is why we have international law that covers this area.

Also, I won't pretend to understand Lebanese politics (does anyone?), but I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been an election I've missed meaning that terrorists rule Lebanon.

(Not dignifying the claim that the only reason people would consider Israel's actions to be disproportionate is that they hate Jewish people and hate Israel with a response)

"There's also a pretty strong argument that Hamas is threatening the existence of Israel"

As a terrorist organisation Hamas is certainly threatening the safety of some Israeli citizens but to imply that they are in any way a meaningful threat to the continued existence of the state of Israel is laughable.

As a previous poster stated the IRA was similarly not a meaningful threat to the UK state but was to some of its citizens.

I give up on trying to actually understand your point of view as you don't seem to want to explain it. I understand that often here we're talking about fundamental beliefs and they're not always logical. You don't actually need to explain yourself to me.

But please do read what you wrote: hamas are so evil and want to eradicate a people so that's not been seen before. I am not an apologist for Hamas. I don't think they give two shits about the people of Gaza. But I would not expect someone arguing a pro-Israel stance to suggest that the concept of a group that wants to eradicate a whole people is something that's never been seen before.

I know all these posters claiming Israel has responded disproportionately would feel differently if they were the Israeli victims.
It isn't a claim made by "these posters". It is a legal requirement in international laws to use proportionality. I lived in Paris whilst the PLO bombed the metro indiscriminately, for months. I had to use it to get to my university. It was terrifying to say the least. No warnings, no shelters. If these had been in place, it would have lessened my fear.
What is the rule of proportionality, and is it being observed in the Israeli siege of Gaza? (theconversation.com)
In my opinion, it seems that many people who won’t defend Israel are simply upset that Israel protects its citizens.
Really? Nothing to do with deliberate the indiscriminate bombings of civilians, the deliberate starvation, the withdrawing of medical supplies, the mass graves, the murder of aid workers and journalists and the list goes on.
Because this is what it comes down to. A numbers game. Israel has a lower death toll because they invest in protecting their citizens, Gaza, Lebanon have higher death tolls because the terrorists ruling their countries don’t care and want a higher death toll.
Nothing to do with the type of weapons used by the IDF?
As always, this will be lost on many posters here because a lot of you just do t like Israel or Jewish people.
Are you calling me an antisemite? This a serious allegation.

As always, this will be lost on many posters here because a lot of you just do t like Israel or Jewish people.

Not this again. Having an alternative view does not equal what you have posted, no matter how many times you and others repeat it.

The majority did not cheer and spit! Stop lying. You do know that there are over two million people in Gaza.

@Alexandra2001

The majority of the people dying in Gaza didn't vote in Hamas, they had no say in 7/10 and the Lebanese certainly didn't vote in Hezbollah.

yet the majority of them celebrated, cheered, spat on bodies and were and still are being part of keeping hostages.

I know all these posters claiming Israel has responded disproportionately would feel differently if they were the Israeli victims. You can attempt to claim the moral high ground but if it were you, you wouldn’t want the constant bombs and rockets and threats either.

In my opinion, it seems that many people who won’t defend Israel are simply upset that Israel protects its citizens.

If Israel was run by terrorist groups and embedded their poison amongst the population and didn’t invent and use the iron dome and have bomb shelters and security, there would be 1000s more deaths.

In that case when Lebanon are launching rockets and it kills 800 Israelis instead of 2, would posters and pro-Palestine supporters be happy?

Because this is what it comes down to. A numbers game. Israel has a lower death toll because they invest in protecting their citizens, Gaza, Lebanon have higher death tolls because the terrorists ruling their countries don’t care and want a higher death toll.

As always, this will be lost on many posters here because a lot of you just do t like Israel or Jewish people.

I can't answer your original question "what would Keir Starmer do" as I don't know but....
If the Norwegians invaded UK, personally I would want "defence" rather than "attack". By which I mean, I would expect us to defend our own territory and people, but not attack another country and kill thousands of innocent people.

I would prefer discussion, compromise, and a political solution. But if that were impossible for whatever reason, then it would be OK to defend our land by intercepting missiles, waging war on invaders on our own territory, or using weapons to defend our cities and people/children/hospitals/significant industries/water supplies.
What I would NOT support is bombing someone else's land in revenge, incursion into their territory, taking over (or taking out) their industry or hospitals or destroying innocent people.

Unpopular view, I suspect, but this 'tit for tat' attitude in all warring countries doesn't solve anything and is only a dangerous version of the child's playground "you've bashed me up so I'll bash you up". Or even, "I'll bash you up first for no reason, just in case you decide to beat me up at a later date".

All war is bloody madness, and I hate it. I'm on no 'side' except that of the innocent sufferers. Each 'side' can cite equal, historically valid reasons for their actions but each are just as bad for not searching for peaceful solutions where each country lives their own lives without curtailing the lives of others.

My opinion is that the ira is a stupid analogy. That's an opinion and based on 1 2 and 3 stands up. They didn't do or want 1 2 or 3 therefore not comparable.

Have you not considered that there is no comparable analogy since hamas are so evil and want to eradicate a people so that's not been seen before. Quite simple really. Everything doesn't fit in neat boxes. Hence my it's stupid. Just a good an opinion as any.

Its not completely different. It's not exactly the same because there is no situation that's exactly the same. Not unless you go back to 1066 or similar. As I said, this is a thread about analogies and feel free to provide a better one.

Saying it's stupid is based on three things (1) that the IRA didn't kill many people on mainland Britain and (2) that the IRA wasn't commited to the elimination of the UK, and (3) the murder of all British people.

(1) And (2) Isn't a good point. In the analogy (which isn't mine btw), Northern Ireland = Israel in that it's territory that the IRA consider is rightfully theirs and shouldn't be under British rule. It doesn't matter that not much, relatively, happened in 'mainland Britain' - that would be like Hamas attacking Egypt. In the IRA example, the IRA absolutely was committed to the elimination of all British rule in NI and return to Irish rule.

(3) I don't know enough about the IRA and 'The Troubles' to know what the IRA did/didn't say about commitment to murder Protestants/English (British isn't really the right comparison). I can accept Hamas may well have been more extreme in this area than the IRA.

The difference between the two situatioms is that there's no equivalent of mainland Britain /England for Israel. Doesn't mean that people providing the analogy have "no idea of reality for Israeli and Gaza".

It wasn't actually my analogy. But as I said feel free to provide a better one. It's certainly not the Denmark example in the OP!

The ira one doesn't work at all. It's stupid because it's completely different as I have already said. 🙃

Condem!

Bad typo 🤣