Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East
Thread gallery
11
Voxon · 27/07/2025 11:51

Bennettfan · 27/07/2025 06:42

@Voxon genuine question, not trying to be gladly. I actually do know a fair bit about the history of the Middle East. I know it’s not as black and white as it’s sometimes presented. however, my question is: do you genuinely believe that the Israeli government’s response to October 7 is still justifiable and proportionate?

This entire situation is flooded with disinformation, double standards, and outright lies. A lot of it comes from an aggressive pro-Palestinian PR machine where falsehoods are repeated so often they pass as fact. I’ve watched this happen daily since the conflict began. Antisemitism plays a major role in it too, that’s why we’re seeing swastikas at protests and Jews assaulted on the streets. Antisemitism thrives on lies and scapegoating, and we’re watching it unfold in real time.

There's also a strong element of social contagion. For many, this isn’t about justice....it’s a trend. It gives people a cause, a costume, a Saturday activity, and someone to gang up on. That mob mentality has existed since humans first walked the earth. It disgusts me. I can’t stop wars, but I can - and will - speak up when I hear lies or antisemitic poison in my own community.

Frankly, the Western obsession with offering “hot takes” on Gaza reeks of arrogance. Nobody in the region cares what you or I think, and the performative outrage from people in Britain who claim to oppose colonialism while dictating foreign borders, is laughable. It isn't up to you or me or Macron to decide who's land is who's or what sort of government Palestinians choose.

My own view though is that this conflict isn’t as complicated as people pretend. One side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map. Hamas has never supported a two-state solution. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews, with a toned down version of that in its updated text. That’s not fringe, that’s core ideology, and it’s what kids are taught in UN-funded schools.

Even when Hamas spokesmen say they’d accept a state, they admit it’s a stepping stone to more violence. So what exactly are people celebrating? A tactical pause on the road to genocide? I literally don't get it.

If people think the entire land of Israel belongs solely to Arabs or Muslims, that’s historically illiterate. If people think October 7 was “justified” because of the Nakba, then they’ve done mental gymnastics worthy of Olympic gold to get there. There is no justification for what was done to Israeli civilians that day. None.

Unlike the keffiyeh crowd, I don’t rank suffering. I feel the same sorrow for starving children in Gaza as I do for those in Congo, Yemen, or Hackney. All suffering matters. That includes Israeli hostages, many still alive, held in horrific conditions. I find the entire obsession with Gaza to be demonstrative of targeting Israel rather than anything reflective of more.

Where I differ most is this: I understand that the vast majority of Palestinian suffering comes from their own leaders. I don’t pretend blockades happen in a vacuum. I don’t think shipping missiles is a human right. And I know that when a terror state devotes itself to your destruction, you don’t sit and wait to die.

It doesn't matter what I think though.

Israel’s response to October 7 is justified under international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter guarantees the right to self-defence. That doesn’t mean tit-for-tat casualty counts. “Proportionality” means striking military targets without excessive civilian harm relative to the advantage gained. Hamas hides in civilian areas, uses schools and hospitals, and booby-traps tunnels beneath homes. Civilian casualties, though tragic, do not make those strikes unlawful when precautions are taken.

And no, this isn’t over. Hamas is still firing rockets. Still holding hostages. Still threatening to repeat October 7. Israel’s campaign is not just retaliation, it’s prevention.

No nation would tolerate what Israel is facing. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. Its goal is not resistance or freedom, it’s obliteration. It’s astonishing that more people aren’t demanding they surrender. That’s the only moral position.

I’m a pacifist. I hate war. I doubt I could ever pull a trigger, much less drop bombs. But I have the luxury of safety, a life secured by people who fought so I wouldn’t have to. And I’m deeply grateful. Hitler had to be stopped. So does Hamas. Or more innocents will die.

I think the best thing anyone eho avtually cares can do would be to bin their keffiyehs and replace then with signs calling for the return of the hostages and Hamas' surrender. Thats whats morally correct.

You can debate Israel’s leadership or tactics, but the core principle here is clear: a sovereign state has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect its people from mass murder and terror. And let’s be honest, if most of Israel’s critics were in the same situation, they’d be ten times harsher, and nobody would bat an eye.

But my personal concern doesn't stretch to the middle eastern peace process. It only extends to doing whatever small things I can do to say "no: to the frenzy of lies, historical distortion and outright obsessive bullying that means Jews aren't safe in the town where I live.

mrssmurfspointyhat · 27/07/2025 11:44

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 20:05

We Brits have big hearts, care about a multitude of issues and can multi-task.

But we don't have bottomless wallets !

mrssmurfspointyhat · 27/07/2025 11:27

TheignT · 26/07/2025 21:56

Ghandi wasn't responsible for how Pakistan was created and the borders. It was a British civil servant. Let's place the blame where it belongs and that isn't with Ghandi.

The boundaries were drawn up after consultation with interested parties. Ghandi wasn't too bothered as long as he got the British out of India. It is well known that both Gandhi and the Congress had stoutly opposed the two-nation theory and were against the Partition.

  • In June 1947, Sir Cyril John Radcliffe, a British lawyer, was made the Chairman of two boundary commissions of Punjab and Bengal and given the task to draw up the new borders of India and Pakistan.
  • He was given a period of five weeks to complete this task and arrived in India in July 1947.
  • The boundary commissions of Punjab and Bengal also included two nominees each of the Indian National Congress and Muslim League respectively.
  • The Punjab commission had Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice Teja Singh, Justice Din Mohammad and Justice Muhammad Munir as members.
  • The Bengal commission comprised Justice CC Biswas, Justice BK Mukherjee, Justice Abu Saleh Akram and Justice SA Rehman.
  • The Boundary Commissions award was made public on August 17, 1947.

Despite all this consultation, in the end no-one was completely happy and unrest and bloodshed followed partition.

Ghandi eventually capitulted to the Muslim League under Jinnah.

Congress and Gandhi accepted partition at the end of a long and arduous period of countering the Muslim League’s concerted attempts to create communal violence and stall any agreement on a united India.

Bennettfan · 27/07/2025 06:42

I meant not trying to be goady!

Bennettfan · 27/07/2025 06:42

@Voxon genuine question, not trying to be gladly. I actually do know a fair bit about the history of the Middle East. I know it’s not as black and white as it’s sometimes presented. however, my question is: do you genuinely believe that the Israeli government’s response to October 7 is still justifiable and proportionate?

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 22:30

Voxon · 26/07/2025 22:17

They deemed Israel did have all those things. But you're missing the point of the conversation you interjected into.

Nobody said Palestinians don't, they were invited to join the process the same as Israel was but refused.

Apologies if misunderstood the point you were making. Its been argued by others that it’s too early for Palestine to be recognised as a state.

Voxon · 26/07/2025 22:17

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 21:55

@Voxon
If it wasnt necessary for Israel, hopefully they will not argue those criteria are necessary for Palestine.

Edited

They deemed Israel did have all those things. But you're missing the point of the conversation you interjected into.

Nobody said Palestinians don't, they were invited to join the process the same as Israel was but refused.

TheignT · 26/07/2025 21:56

mrssmurfspointyhat · 25/07/2025 21:29

I'd like to know where this "Palestinian State" is going to be?

Gaza or the West Bank?

Or is there going to be two areas divided by a strip of Israel?

Ghandi tried that with Pakistan and that ended up with a bloody civil war between West and East Pakistan.(Bangladesh) that left 1 million dead.

"Those that don't learn the lessons of history are compelled to repeat them" Winston Churchill, I believe.

Ghandi wasn't responsible for how Pakistan was created and the borders. It was a British civil servant. Let's place the blame where it belongs and that isn't with Ghandi.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 21:55

@Voxon
If it wasnt necessary for Israel, hopefully they will not argue those criteria are necessary for Palestine.

TheignT · 26/07/2025 21:51

Voxon · 25/07/2025 20:21

Ah yes. Dr Maynard. Not a word out of him on October 7th, but he managed to speak out by the 13th to claim a "humanitarian crisis" less than a week into israel's response. He can be found at weekends with a keffifeh on, chanting "from the river to the sea" and retweets some of the most virulent antisemites on the planet, including Salaiman Ahmed- but I'm sure he's an excellent source of entirely unembellished information. He is a doctor after all. They can't be antisemitic and it's physically impossible for them to lie.

Once again if they have nothing to hide and claim people are lying then let independent war correspondents in to cover what is actually going on. What are they trying to hide?

Voxon · 26/07/2025 21:50

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 21:28

Of course the state of Israel is not up for debate!

I was responding to how it could be argued that it didn’t meet all the parameters that you outlined in your post when it was initially established- it’s your argument:

“Actually, it’s the other way around: recognition acknowledges a state that already exists.

It doesn’t magically create one out of thin air.
A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...

A permanent population
A defined territory
A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states”

No, it's not "my argument".

To qualify as a sovereign state under international law, the most widely accepted criteria come from the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which outlines four key requirements:

  1. A permanent population – A stable community of people residing in the territory.
  1. A defined territory – Clear and recognised borders (even if disputed in parts).
  1. A government – An organised political authority with control over the territory and people.
  1. Capacity to enter into relations with other states – The ability to conduct foreign policy and enter treaties independently.

These are the basic legal standards, not "my argument".

Whether you think Israel met them or not doesn't really seem relevant to anything.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 21:32

Of course you don’t need to continue to engage with me.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 21:28

Voxon · 26/07/2025 20:31

I've got no idea what you're arguing about. Your theories are not interesting to me.

Israel is a state. Its not up for debate anymore.

Of course the state of Israel is not up for debate!

I was responding to how it could be argued that it didn’t meet all the parameters that you outlined in your post when it was initially established- it’s your argument:

“Actually, it’s the other way around: recognition acknowledges a state that already exists.

It doesn’t magically create one out of thin air.
A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...

A permanent population
A defined territory
A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states”

Voxon · 26/07/2025 21:00

Lilactimes · 26/07/2025 20:51

The actions of the current Israeli Government have become increasingly extreme tho. The terrorist atrocity committed against them by Hamas was hideous - as was 9/11.
In this instance, and in the last two months in particular, any rules governing warfare/ attacking women and children/ allowing aid through have been ignored.

I think it just seems that way because there's so much media coverage and so much talk about it.

In reality the aftermath of 9/11 triggered two decades of US led wars and military interventions. The human toll was staggering.

Over 940,000 people killed, this includes civilians, US and allied troops, opposition fighters, contractors, journalists, and aid workers.

Indirect deaths (due to war-caused disease, infrastructure collapse, etc.) is estimated at 3.6–3.8 million.

38–60 million were displaced or forced to flee

Tens of millions faced acute hunger

It just wasn't as publicised and the US and others were not really demonised for it.

Lilactimes · 26/07/2025 20:51

AlphaFemaleNotBeta · 25/07/2025 06:59

@Bennettfanso Israel should have voted in a liberal party that wouldn’t have taken action after 7/10? Imagine if USA had a liberal president 20 years ago after 9/11 who just said ‘ah that wasn’t nice, do not do that again please’

The actions of the current Israeli Government have become increasingly extreme tho. The terrorist atrocity committed against them by Hamas was hideous - as was 9/11.
In this instance, and in the last two months in particular, any rules governing warfare/ attacking women and children/ allowing aid through have been ignored.

Lilactimes · 26/07/2025 20:46

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 20:05

We Brits have big hearts, care about a multitude of issues and can multi-task.

👏👏👏 @Stripes56 especially when there are children starving to death

Voxon · 26/07/2025 20:31

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 19:25

I didn’t say there wasn’t a permanent population. It was by far in the minority. Immigration was used to support the establishment of the future state of Israel -partly against the British rulers wishes.

Israel continues to support the immigration of Jews to Israel when it clear doesn’t have the land to support this. They need to occupy the WB.

Firstly there weren’t fixed borders- I am surprised that this is news to you, as it’s often used to argue that Israel isn’t occupying land illegally:

“The modern Israeli state was forged in the fires of the first Middle East war in 1948-1949, but from the beginning it was a state without clear borders.
The fact that complete, permanent borders still have not yet been drawn around Israel 60 years later is testimony to the rancour of its relations with neighbouring Arab states.
Jordan and Egypt have signed treaties with Israel, turning some of the 1949 ceasefire lines into state borders. But the absence of final settlements with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians mean most of Israel's boundaries remain potential flashpoints and the state itself is unstable.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11102696

“Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states
Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.”

Absolutely- I thought you had argued in the post I had tagged that it was too early to support a Palestinian state without a government. Clearly we agree that this is not necessary!

At least we agree on something 😄

I've got no idea what you're arguing about. Your theories are not interesting to me.

Israel is a state. Its not up for debate anymore.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 20:05

pearcrumblee · 26/07/2025 19:48

I wish the British on here would care more about their own country than they do about some random country in the Middle East.

We Brits have big hearts, care about a multitude of issues and can multi-task.

TakeMe2Insanity · 26/07/2025 19:55

Dontthink · 24/07/2025 23:42

Will Israel recognise Palestinians as humans?

Nailed it.

pearcrumblee · 26/07/2025 19:48

I wish the British on here would care more about their own country than they do about some random country in the Middle East.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 19:43

I am sure a civil group of pro-Palestinians Arabs can be found to negotiate with.

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 19:25

Voxon · 26/07/2025 16:16

Prior and as part of the establishment of Israel- there was a real drive to get Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is still going on as Israel continues with expansion aspirations.

And? There was a permanent population.

Can we say Israel has kept to any defined territory- its borders seem to growing within the West Bank, into Golan Heights and now back into Gaza.

And? There was clearly defined territory.

Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states

Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a permanent population. It was by far in the minority. Immigration was used to support the establishment of the future state of Israel -partly against the British rulers wishes.

Israel continues to support the immigration of Jews to Israel when it clear doesn’t have the land to support this. They need to occupy the WB.

Firstly there weren’t fixed borders- I am surprised that this is news to you, as it’s often used to argue that Israel isn’t occupying land illegally:

“The modern Israeli state was forged in the fires of the first Middle East war in 1948-1949, but from the beginning it was a state without clear borders.
The fact that complete, permanent borders still have not yet been drawn around Israel 60 years later is testimony to the rancour of its relations with neighbouring Arab states.
Jordan and Egypt have signed treaties with Israel, turning some of the 1949 ceasefire lines into state borders. But the absence of final settlements with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians mean most of Israel's boundaries remain potential flashpoints and the state itself is unstable.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11102696

“Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states
Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.”

Absolutely- I thought you had argued in the post I had tagged that it was too early to support a Palestinian state without a government. Clearly we agree that this is not necessary!

At least we agree on something 😄

BBC News

Obstacles to Middle East peace: Borders and settlements

The BBC's Martin Asser looks at the four main obstacles on the road to peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11102696

SomeWomanSomewhere · 26/07/2025 18:36

News now suggesting Canada may join France in the recognition. Reported by various usually reliable sources. Though earlier in the day the word was both Canada and the UK were afraid to draw the ire of Trump.

dairydebris · 26/07/2025 16:32

Voxon · 25/07/2025 23:00

I'm not sure if you've deliberately posted so much false information or if you've just got your knowledge from propaganda sources but this retelling of history is just garbage.

  1. “The partition plan was rejected by Palestinian Jews too” - Completely false.

The Jewish leadership accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Arab leadership rejected it outright, not because of borders, but because they refused to accept any Jewish state at all, in any form.

  1. 'The British did half hearted attempts to combat the Jewish terrorist groups
Arab terrorism started long before 1947' - huh?????

Between the 1920s and 1940s, Arab violence against Jews in British Mandatory Palestine was relentless. It went on for something like 18 years before the Jews retaliated!

The 1920 Nebi Musa riots and 1921 Jaffa riots
The 1929, the Hebron massacre s
The Arab Revolt.

Thousands were killed.

So, by 1947, the idea that Arab violence was a “response” to Jewish actions is historical nonsense. The violence predated the state, the UN plan, and any war - motivated by rejection of Jewish sovereignty, period.

  1. The Nakba wasn’t an act of Jewish aggression- it was the result of Arab war.

As soon as the UN passed the partition plan in 1947, Arab militias began attacking Jewish convoys, farms, and towns. This was civil war, initiated by the Arab side. When Israel declared independence, five Arab states invaded with the open goal of wiping it off the map.

In that war, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled, but not solely because of Israel. Many fled under orders from Arab leaders, expecting to return after a swift victory.

And yes, some were displaced in the war, just as hundreds of thousands of Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries -but somehow those Jewish refugees are never mentioned.

  1. The British didn’t just oppose “Jewish terrorism.”

They cracked down hard on Jewish militias, yes - but they also armed and backed the Arab Legion. The British weren’t neutral -they were trying to keep oil-rich Arab allies on side.

  1. The Arab-Israeli war wasn’t about refugees - it was about erasing Israel.

The Arab League’s communications were clear: their goal wasn’t to establish a Palestinian state, it was to destroy the newly declared Jewish one. And let’s be clear: if they’d succeeded, there wouldn’t be a “two-state solution”—there’d be no Israel at all.

  1. “Israel seized Palestinian lands in 1967” — garbage did they

In 1967, Israel was responding to blockades, threats of annihilation, and massed Arab armies on its bloody borders. The war was defensive, not imperial. The West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan, and Gaza was under Egyptian military control. There was no Palestinian state for Israel to “seize.” After winning the war, Israel even offered to return land in exchange for peace, and was met with the Arab League’s infamous “Three No’s”: No peace, no recognition, no negotiations.

  1. “The U.S. blocked recognition of Palestine for 20 years” ... what????

There was nothing to recognise!!!! Between 1948 and the late 1980s, no Arab country established a Palestinian state, even when they controlled the territory.

Your narrative erases decades of Arab-initiated violence, flips the timeline of cause and effect, and whitewashes the repeated Arab rejection of Jewish statehood which still continues!!!!!

I am very worried about people. These are easy facts to read about, so where are you reading these versions???

I'm very worried too. Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore. Thanks for rebutting this rubbish.

Voxon · 26/07/2025 16:16

Stripes56 · 26/07/2025 15:39

Not really kept up with this thread
But:

A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...
A permanent population
Prior and as part of the establishment of Israel- there was a real drive to get Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is still going on as Israel continues with expansion aspirations.

A defined territory
Can we say Israel has kept to any defined territory- its borders seem to growing within the West Bank, into Golan Heights and now back into Gaza.

A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states

Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states

so strictly speaking- none above necessary prior to creation a state?

Prior and as part of the establishment of Israel- there was a real drive to get Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is still going on as Israel continues with expansion aspirations.

And? There was a permanent population.

Can we say Israel has kept to any defined territory- its borders seem to growing within the West Bank, into Golan Heights and now back into Gaza.

And? There was clearly defined territory.

Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states

Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.