Greens adopt policy treating Zionism as racism (part 2)

[Twiglets1]

Follow on from previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5585462-greens-adopt-policy-treating-zionism-as-racism?page=40&reply=155235707

The average civilian, whose parents voted Hamas in.

Then Hamas need to do their part by disarming and negotiating a two state solution. They have killed Palestinians, stolen their aid to stockpile in the tunnels and buy weapons and leave them exposed while they either live in luxury in Oman or hide in the tunnels. The only way there will be peace will be if Iran stop funding terrorism throughout the region.

I don't think I can really keep engaging with someone who ends a post with 'that's all I need to know'... there's not really anywhere to go with that.

I don’t think you understand the legal meaning of “proportionate force”. It’s not about “an eye for an eye” (it would be illegal for Israel to go into Gaza to rape, kidnap and kill a comparable number of Gazans).

It’s about whether the military means used to achieve a legal aim are reasonable, and whether other means which would cause fewer casualties (including civilian casualties) to achieve the same aim could have been employed instead.

So the questions of proportionality that need to be answered here are:

• whether removing Hamas from Gaza was a reasonable response to their actions on Oct 7th (clearly it is);
• Whether this aim was potentially achievable by attacking Gaza (I’m not a military strategist so can’t say, but I presume that “achievable” doesn't mean a foregone conclusion, just that it’s not delusional - whereas Hamas’ attack on Oct 7th could not really be presented as a plausible tactic to take over the state of Israel, and so was just a terror attack on civilians) so probably Yes;
• Whether this aim could have been achieved in a different manner. And this is where nobody ever gives a plausible alternative strategy. You made a vague attempt to propose targeted extra-judicial killings but Im not certain those are legal, and anyway, Israel has resorted to those in the past and they haven’t prevented October 7th, nor many other attacks so I think we can say they are not sufficient anyway.

It’s also not true that Israel made no attempt to protect civilians. Many attempts were made such as leafleting etc, and it was Hamas which prevented people from leaving the areas.

War crimes are a separate question: name a war in which there have been no war crimes. That does not invalidate a war retroactively. It may be that Netanyahu is guilty of war crimes and if so I hope he meets justice for them. If not, then whoever was responsible for them. But that is not a retro-justification for Hamas’ attack on Oct 7th and does not, of itself, make Israel’s response illegal.

The “average civilian”, who cheered and even spat on Shani Louk’s dead and mutilated body as it was paraded through Gaza in the back of a pickup truck with men’s boots on top of her.
The “average civilian”, from whom the freed hostages said Hamas militants had had to protect them whenever they were moved from one place to another, as they tried to physically attack the hostages.
The reality is that 20+ years of Hamas control of the education system and the media has created a brainwashed population. Nothing will improve unless that is tackled. I don’t really know how to go about that TBH.

Absolutely. 💯

Quite - they have made up their mind and don't want any considered responses getting in the way.

Do I think Israel have acted disproportionately and carelessly in Gaza in retaliation to the October 7th attacks? Given the extremist government's blind eye to blatantly unacceptable actions in the West Bank - most likely.

Are there problems with Hamas being deeply embedded in the Palestinian population which makes targeting them and them alone very difficult? Absolutely.

Am I suspicious of people who think they have all the answers about what has gone on in Gaza because of information given to them by Hamas and who avoid mentioning Hamas when discussing this topic? Definitely.

Very well put, Noble.

I agree. It's not a conflict where you can be categorically correct; it's far too complex for that.

Very, very well said.

And has been mentioned on here several times; the facts, figures and images we are receiving from Gaza are principally supplied by Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry.

There is no doubt that there will be devastation and sadly, civilian casualties. But we must also be aware that there is inevitably a lot of spin and propaganda too. Unfortunately, the easily convinced accept these statistics and disinformation without question and consequently use them to justify and allow their previously latent antisemitism to have full rein.

Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have just been to the polls for the national election. This is a right they do not have in the West Bank (elections delayed for years), Gaza (elections delayed for years) or, indeed, anywhere in the Arab world. Funny looking apartheid...

If Israel made no effort to protect civilians, why have we seen a rate of civilian fatalities markedly lower than in many other conflicts in urban areas (bombing of Singapore by Japan in WWII, 300-400 dead a day; Battle of Berlin in 1945, >100k civilian casualties in less than three weeks)? Also bear in mind that the fatality count in Gaza includes combatants from Hamas, PIJ et, not just civilians. This was a war where the civilians didn't really have anywhere to flee to... they could have fled to Egypt, but Egypt refused to let any of them in. Strangely enough, Egypt is never on the hook for trapping Gazan civilians, or for aid shipments into Gaza. Only Israel is ever to blame.

And why did the Israelis bother with facilitating vaccination programmes in Gaza over the past few years if this was really 'a genocide'?

As I think I said before, Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. The population of Gaza elected Hamas in 2006. Strange to relate, the Israelis opted to retain control over Gazas airspace, borders and coastline (as did the Egyptians who are no more keen on Hamas than Israel is). Gaza could ahave chosen a peaceful route, but the population that (last) voted 20-odd years ago opted not to. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if all the aid poured into Gaza had gone on social development projects and investment for jobs, rather than bombs and tunnels.

ETA, you also didn't answer my earlier questions. But I didn't expect you too.

Yes, they're the kind of people who would be completely paralysed by the threat of being called racist or Islamaphobic, making them ripe for takeover.

There's a lot of these people around. Unfortunately many of them are in positions of power and responsibility.

Time has moved on since the second world war, the killing of tens of thousands of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure, hospitals is not acceptable and never has been.

While these conflicts continue innocent people die, there really is no need for it and there is no end in sight.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16245667/Trump-sends-secret-diplomatic-message-allies-thousands-American-troops-prepare-fresh-blitz-Iran.html

More war is on the cards .....so that's probably another 50 pence on the price of fuel, another ten percent on the oil price of gas. Is there actually a plan here.

It would be a stupid terrorist organisation that didn't set up base in a hospital then, wouldn't it?

Still waiting to hear what specific response you’d expect if 10,000 British people were murdered, raped and kidnapped.

Honestly not sure why I’m carrying on though. I think we’ve reached an impasse. Which is fine really. Neither of us actually can affect much over there anyway so it’s all academic.

Finally we get to the real reason they are having little rants on a thread called Greens adopt policy treating Zionism as racism about only vague things to do with topic from what can see currently

I just thought they were doing the whole derailing thing because supported tbe Green party but no they don't want conflict because of the economic upset, especially their own wallet at a guess

Always one and they always start showing true colours eventually. So much for the big humanitarian concern about life's (Though they only seemed concerned about death's on one side anyway)

Be interesting to see where they would find space to set up base in an NHS hospital

Probably just easier to just continue using the Green Party offices, IRGC buildings and places run by the Muslim Brotherhood

Yes, when I was left wing and supporting anti-apartheid in South Africa, if the ANC had carried out a similar massacre on the Afrikaners, my support for them would have ended.

Oct 7th seems to have turbo-charged the pro-Palestine, anti-Israel lobby. Which says a lot about their motivations.

I agree.

I’ll be quite upfront and admit my sympathies used to be with Gaza, but the atrocities committed on October 7 and the subsequent treatment of the hostages has opened my eyes and lost my compassion for the Palestinians. It’s made me read and understand just why virtually none of the Arab world wants anything to do with them and particularly why Egypt has continued to reinforce the buffer zones in order to control access and block tunnels.

While severe atrocities and true genocides occur globally, the exclusive focus and spotlight on Israel suggests that much of this critique is driven by underlying antisemitism using humanitarian outrage as a convenient shield.

Well this is exactly the point I’ve been making when people come out with this “Oh the IRA…” nonsense. I too grew up thinking it was natural to support Palestine over Israel - basically the loyalists supported Israel, nationalists the Palestinians. Lots of people who didn’t support the IRA still lined up along sectarian lines for Israel-Palestine. Of course it’s easy to see why - that conflict isn’t going to drag your sons into it.

But in the NI conflict, no nationalists ever supported the deliberate targeting of children or civilians in general. Even the most extreme would only have tried to “explain” the few openly sectarian murders of civilians in various ways - but of course that was because they knew that it revolted everyone else. If cheering crowds had surrounded the body of Marie Wilson I’ve no doubt that would have become a tactic. Instead it was a “mistake” and “only soldiers had been targeted”.

Oct 7th, and the joyful reaction of Gazans (and others) to it were a wake-up call to me. It’s a whole other level of terror. And supported locally by a deeply radicalised population.

Ah well now you can call your band Kneecap and it's all in good fun.

I’m fairly sure that Kneecap, the group, were being firmly tongue in cheek when they chose the name. What’s changed since then is that there’s been a romanticisation of the NI troubles, especially by people outside of NI but also some younger people within NI who never experienced the reality of the troubles.

Kneecap are either cynically exploiting that or, perhaps, have been caught up in the thrill of fame etc and have allowed themselves to go along with it.

They are the younger people in NI who never really experienced the Troubles?

I didn’t say ALL, I said some. And that’s what I meant.
What I’m saying is that they started out against sectarianism, and also trying to say that life in NÍ since the troubles is not all that perfect either: one of them said that the irony in their name was partly that they sang about drugs and other things that would have got them kneecapped back then. They were not supporting IRA punishments.

But outsiders (and a certain part of NI society too) have put a whole other meaning onto that original cynical take on the troubles, and they (Kneecap) have played up to it. And maybe it was always there for some of them too, especially the Israel-Palestine thing.

And “ní ceap”, pronounced knee cap, is Irish for “(I) don’t think (so)” - it was about DISAGREEING with the traditional “truths” and stereotypes about NI. And now they’re right banh in the middle of those stereotypes. It’s a shame.