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

[itsmabeline]

Raping them, brining children, taking hostages then held them for a year. Then promised they would do it again and again any time they had the power or chance.

Do you think we'd invade Norway?

Do you think we'd have domestic or international support?

@Dulra

Thank you for very clearly and concisely answering the questions. I think it's only once we have distilled the key issues that any real understanding of the differences of opinion can be established and then hopefully a compromise or solution found.

I'll fix the analogy a bit for you.

Imagine Japan said to some Norwegeins - the UK is your Holy land. Please go there, it's your new home. Japan didn't ask UK if this was ok, just presumed UK would be happy to share with the Norwegeins. So the Norwegeins came over and gradually took over all the land, stole the houses of UK residents. Took over town by town, village by village. The Norwegeins shot and killed many thousands of UK citizens and traumatised them. They pushed the UK residents into Devon and then built a wall around Devon. Devon is now the most densely populated country in the world because the population of UK has been squeezed into it. A few UK citizens also were pushed into Birmingham and a wall and checkpoints were built around it.

Now the residents of Birmingham and Devon are not allowed to leave. They can't drive to London anymore, only Norwegeins are allowed in London. Only Norwegeins are allowed on the motorways. Only Norwegians can vote on what happens in Wales, London, Cardiff,.Scotland. only Norwegians are allowed in the UK. UK citizens must remain in either Birmingham or Devon and they can't travel between the two or leave or ever visit their capital city or any important religious places in the UK they used to go.

Norwegians now control the water and electric supplies to Devon. They build new houses around and inside Birmingham.

When Birmingham and Devon people protest, they are shot. Most people in Devon and Birmingham have seen at least one family member murdered by the Norwegians. They all hate the Norwegians for stealing their country and killing their friends and family.

The Norwegeins decide to fund an organisation called Hummus. They don't like them but they want Birmingham and Devon to be separated and not feel as one united UK anymore. They want infighting within Devon and Birmingham too. So they give loads of money to Hummus.

Members of hummus happily take money from the Norwegians who have taken over their land. They want revenge against the Norwegians for stealing their country and killing their friends and family.

Some members of hummus, as a result of sustained trauma inflicted by the Norwegians, have turned evil. They break out of Devon and launch an attack in Bristol. They savagely and horrifically kill innocent Norwegians that were partying in their homes in Devon (the homes that used to belong to UK citizens).

The Norwegians are angry and scared by this horrific act, so they make sure the walls around Devon are completely secure, then they bomb the shit out of the place. They kill thousands of children, destroy all the hospitals, schools and traumatise the people trapped in Devon every day for a year. They induce famine, they cut off electricity when they like launching Devon into darkenss. They tell the children to move to the north, then bomb it. They tell the inform to move south, then bomb them. They drive tanks over dead and alive UK citizens in devon. The blow small children into thousands of pieces. The Norwegians are angry so they start attacking the people in Bingham too, even though noone in Birmingham was involved in the hummus attack.

Then the Norwegian leader of what was once the UK (now called norway-land) decides he will also invade Ireland. He wants to get rid of UK citizens from Devon completely and from Birmingham. He wants the whole UK to be called 'norway-land' and he wants Ireland too. He'd already stared building Norwegian homes in Ireland, but now he's decided to just start killing people there...

@1dayatatime Were you genuinely not aware that there is heavy criticism of what the US did when it dropped the atomic bombs on Japan? Even when I was doing history at school 30+ years ago a syllabus topic was whether the US actions were justified to bring a faster end to the war.

In the spirit of your response, are you able to explain why you believe that Israel's actions are proportionate and not war crimes?

For example, do you believe that because Hamas is in power in Gaza, the residents of Gaza are all enemy combatants and are all responsible for Hamas's actions (and if so, how does this translate to Lebanon and Hezbollah)? Is your argument based on the fact that Israel doesn't recognize Gaza as a sovereign state and therefore much of the international law should not apply (and if so then what about Lebanon)? Or do you dispute the position that is being put forwards and believe that, whilst there are civilians, civilians have had ample opportunity to evacuate and that entry of food and medical supplies are not being restricted aka this is all propaganda?

Exactly, either the posters are ignorant of that fact or being purposely unfactual in replies in an error to make an incorrect point.

Completely different to Oct 7th. As usual some people don't engage with facts.

Interestingly people make stupid comparisons on mn whilst having no idea of reality for Israeli and Gaza

People are attempting to provide analogies because the premise of this thread is an analogy.

If you don't agree with the IRA one, feel free to provide one that works better.

Japan forged an alliance with Germany and Italy, totally different situation and you know it or i thought you would.
By v late 1941, Europe was under the Nazi's, Russia had been attacked and the much of the far East and Pacific was under the control of the Japanese.[';p`

Hamas isn't threatening the existence of Europe or the Far East.

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.

The rest of your post makes little sense.

How anyone can justify the killing of 42,000 almost all innocent people, to keep Netanyahu in power is beyond me.... because that s what it has become all about now.
He is uncontrollable by his American/UK allies, who are too scared to criticise him and who also seeks to help get Trump into power.....

That'll help us all, won't it.

apan forged an alliance with Germany and Italy, totally different situation and you know it or i thought you would.
By v late 1941, Europe was under the Nazi's, Russia had been attacked and the much of the far East and Pacific was under the control of the Japanese.[';p`
Hamas isn't threatening the existence of Europe or the Far East.

I don't think we should make excuses for the atrocities the West has committed. Japan was not threatening the existence of much (and certainly not the US) when the US dropped bombs and killed around 200k Japanese, mainly civilians. They just didn't want a prolonged and expensive land war. History is written by the victors, if the US had not won that war for some reason no one would be defending what they did.

There's also a pretty strong argument that Hamas is threatening the existence of Israel. Action is still disproportionate.

I condone Israel's actions, and I strongly believe they are committing multiple war crimes. It needs to stop, and the US is probably the only country that can stop it (and before Iran really moves). Netanyahu is exploiting the current power vacuum in the US and I am disgusted (but sadly not surprised) that no one at the top of US politics is willing to risk sacrificing their political ambition to put an end to this. Not saying the UK is much better, but realistically it's on the US that can potentially do something.

Although it is worth noting that 'only' ~500k of the ~2M Japanese killed by the 'US' in WW2 were civilians, and the 2M figure includes around 500k of Japanese military casualties in the Sino-Japanese war (not sure how many civilians) which I don't think anyone can say started because of Pearl Harbor. WW2 numbers get horrific very fast. (As do the Sino-Japanese war numbers but let's leave that war crimes discussion for another day!).

For all the numbers above, reports vary. I'm relying on Wikipedia.

Did you mean to write "....I condone Israel's actions...."

I'm a bit confused.

Oops tgat was for @Dubaiinception

Condem!

Bad typo 🤣

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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)

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.