Hamas leader Sinwar dead

[Toomanywars]

Reported just on Sky

Good points.

Victim status for the aggressors 🙄

@Auvergne63

"Yet they realised that future prosperity and peace lay in economic growth and not perpetuating a circle of violence. "

"They were able to realise this because the Marshall plan created stable conditions in which democratic institutions could survive. Germany wasn't the only country in Europe who benefitted from this."

I think we are getting somewhere.

They realised that future prosperity and peace lay in economic growth and not perpetuating a circle of violence. The Marshall Plan and de nazification programme enabled this but did not create it.

If the average German believed and was encouraged to believe by well meaning Allied supporters that they were the victims and being badly treated along with being supplied with weapons from a third country then regardless of the Marshall Plan the outcome would have been very different.

Let’s turn this on its head.

How do we de-radicalise the people of Israel that view Palestinians as sub human?

How do we ensure that the people of Israel demand their government ceases to occupy Gaza and terrorise the West Bank?

And how do we ensure that they remove extremist members from the Israeli government?

Wow! Israelis do not need 'de radicalisation'! 'We' have no authority over Israel nor should 'we' have.
Israel is a democracy and when the war is over elections will take place and a new government will be elected.

@PeasfullPerson

"How do we de-radicalise the people of Israel that view Palestinians as sub human? "

The best way is through co operative person to person interaction which also generates economic growth. However you can't have this until there is security. Yes you will always have the extremist Israeli nut jobs seeing Palestinians as sub human but over time they will become a decreasing minority.

"How do we ensure that the people of Israel demand their government ceases to occupy Gaza and terrorise the West Bank? "

By the above human interaction and yes international pressure pointing out that you can't really expect peace if you go round building settlements in other peoples countries.

"And how do we ensure that they remove extremist members from the Israeli government?"

Through democracy.

Some sections of Israeli society certainly does need de-radicalising! Stop pretending otherwise. Like the settlers who non stop attack Palestinian farmers and shepherd's. Or those families who make a day out with the kids to prevent aid getting into Gaza and have no qualms stating they think Palestinians should starve.

To be fair most of Israeli government need de-radicalising, starting with Netanyahu. You don't think he is a radical?

IDF soldiers who make tiktoks with dead Palestinians in the background, or displaying and mocking Palestinian women's underwear don't need de-radicalising?

The Israeli youth who roam the streets of Jerusalem on Jerusalem day, threatening Palestinians and chanting 'death to arabs' don't need de-radicalising?

Stop pretending radicalisation of some parts of society only exists on one side.

@Toomanywars

"Victim status for the aggressors"

Actually it's worse than this.

If you kept telling me after I had started a fight with the boxer that actually I am the victim and that I have been unfairly treated. Then yes I am going to get angry and try and get revenge (maybe take a knife next time) .

This then leads to me being beaten up more and so on. It would be better to point out that I was being stupid and to seek a better solution.

So by telling me that I am the victim and that everyone else is at fault you actually end up making things worse for me.

Those Israelis who openly mock Palestinians burning to death and calling it 'pallywood' don't need de-radicalising?
This behaviour doesn't come anywhere within the parameters of what is considered humane. This is all radical extreme behaviour. Is it the whole of Palestinian society that is radical? No
Is it the whole of Israeli society that is radical? No
But if you can't accept that it exists on both sides then you have chosen to be blind to reality.

If someone attacks a professional fighter and the fighter defends themselves, and the instigator gets hurt, a police investigation would consider the proportionality of the fighter's response. It would probably be considered unacceptable for the fighter to kill the person, kill, torture and injure their family and burn down their home.

Well said, you would think this is obvious common sense to most people.

This will only be realised by those who are being oppressed and not by the oppressors or its supporters. They'll be blind to it because they will find a way to justify it.

Torture is never acceptable. Targeting innocent civilians is never acceptable. But your analogy doesn’t really work in this situation. The conflict was not just about punishing wrong doers and retrieving the hostages but also about securing the future safety of the Israeli state. ( I’m not justifying all the actions of the IDF many of which I completely condemn- I’m just saying the analogy doesn’t hold because the aims are wider than in a civil matter)

@Scirocco

"If someone attacks a professional fighter and the fighter defends themselves, and the instigator gets hurt, a police investigation would consider the proportionality of the fighter's response. It would probably be considered unacceptable for the fighter to kill the person, kill, torture and injure their family and burn down their home."

I'm not sure of the point you are making.

It would be unlikely that a professional fighter would seek to kill, torture and injure the family and burn down the family home of the aggressor. When they would simply punch the aggressor back in the face.

Or are you minimising the attack on the 7th October as nothing more serious than a punch in the face?

No - I don’t think it was any attempt to minimise October 7th. I certainly didn’t read it in that way. I think it was an analogy to describe Israel’s response as disproportionate. I agree the response has been disproportionate but I don’t agree with the analogy. I think Israel has a responsibility not only to punish the wrong doers but also to protect its citizens from future attacks. And that means the analogy used isn’t adequate.
But I do take the point that the conflict has caused far too much suffering for innocent Palestinians and there are questions to answer about IDF actions

I hope anyone in the UK wandering around with Sinwar's face on a t-shirt like a latter day Wolfie Smith will be treated with the respect they deserve.

@Limesodaagain

Thank you - that is much more clearly explained and logical.

@Kindatired

Actually I respect you for your honesty in expressing your opinion on Sinwar

Maybe if there was a bit more honesty all round then we could actually understand the problem and to then develop a resolution.

It wasn't my analogy to start with, @Limesodaagain . Someone else was using it to justify the destruction of Palestine. I'm simply pointing out that proportionality and legal limits on the extent to which actions can be justified in self-defence are still relevant in that situation. Being the victim of a violent assault does not give someone the right to disproportionate aggression. They have the right to self-defence within the limits of the law, and to justice for crimes committed.

@1dayatatime you might want to ask that question of the many people using the analogy to justify the war. I'm simply explaining that even in that analogy (chosen by people supportive of the current actions of Israeli forces in Palestine and Lebanon), there are limits to what the victim of the assault is legally considered able to do in response.

@Kindatired why was your post deleted?