Chinahand

Helix, are you genuinely unaware of the nexus between revolutionary communism and the rise of fascism?

Since the time of Disraeli the politics of the UK has been more interested in Class than Ethnicity. The attempts by the likes of Mosley and Powell to change that have rightly failed.

I find this blind spot rather incredible ... it really shows such a short sighted view point. I go back to my main example. The French city of Caen. It was systematically destroyed under the orders of Montgomery. It was destroyed from the air, by artillery, by tank, by squaddies going street to street using high explosive and lead. 3000 civillians were killed during the assault. It is just one example of thousands of cities destroyed in war. Now what is the difference between this and October 7th? Come on, HeteroErectus, let's see if you can actually think? Actually use your brain? Heard of Just War Theory by any chance? Heard the expression "war is the continuance of politics by other means?" Do we have to start with GCSE levels of comprehension to have a debate here? Caen was controlled by a genocidal military force which was under-orders to fight to the last man, which had no care for the civilians under its control. A state of war had been declared to remove this military force from power and the soldiers and generals adopted their strategies and issued their orders to achieve this. That is war. It is a dreadful, evil thing. But understand the objective, understand the political decisions being made. Montgomery didn't want to kill a single civilian, blow up a single building. If there had been a way of peacefully achieving his political aim - removing a genocidal military force from holding power in the city - he would have taken it. Now, there is then October 7th - what was the political aim of those attacks? My firm understanding is that it was to kill people where ever they could be found - whether at a pop festival, travelling peacefully on their business, or in their homes. October 7th was the deliberate massacre of over 1,000 people. That was the aim, the objective, the political point of what they were doing. To kill ruthlessly, even babies and children. To spread terror, to polarise, to break growing relationships and raise the political profile of their cause which had been side-lined due to their failure to pursue policies that gained them influence in the cabinets and congresses of the world. Are you so without a humanist understanding as to not to see the difference between the Battle of Caen and October 7th? Goodness what is the world coming to? As I've asked before, and now directly ask you, HeteroErectus (I suppose simply from the name you've chosen we would be having a sub GCSE level debate): Should Hamas after the events of 7 October remain in political control over Gaza? Are you really going to be such a useful idiot as to want to defend Hamas as a political body? Please note you do not need to defend Hamas to support the foundation of a Palestinian state or the achievement of justice for Palestinians. It is pretty firmly my view the likes of Hamas have actively stopped Palestinians achieving justice, peace and wealth, but that is for another post. Let's stick to topic on this one. 7th October 2023 justifiable or not? Comparable with a legitimate military operation, such as Montgomery's in Caen in 1944? Come HeteroErectus let's see your justifications on how the events of 7th October 2023 were not, as you so gracefully put it, "so remarkable".

Oh my giddy aunt ...

That is the nub of the issue, Casta. And directly leads to the question: should Hamas after the events of 7 October remain in political control over Gaza? From that binary question much else follows.

Cartoon removed from Washington Post ... for being offensive to Hamas!

I am intrigued by the US Culture Wars and their causes and consequences. There is a huge divide between hard and soft departments on US campuses.

Too busy but highly suspicious of this. Firstly you need to distinguish between General Assembly resolutions ... Hand wringing with no legal import ... And Security Council resolutions ... Legally valid. Israel is regularly a General Assembly whipping boy and is far more likely to be censured for actions Egypt Syria Saudi Russia Myanmar the US (in Iraq etc) the UK (in Iraq etc and also Northern Ireland) etc etc also regularly do with far less censure. Security Council less so. Why? Yeah the US veto is one reason, an understanding of the bias showed in the GA by all the big boys on the SC another. Lies will make claims about THE JEWS.

I'm foolish enough to try and answer it. My answer is inspired by Simon Peres, I can remember a few years ago him raising how different the Israeli and Hamas approaches were - while Israel tried all it could do to protect its children, Hamas extolled martyrdom. Every country has a responsibility to protect its civilian population. It should value its civilian population more than the civilians of other countries. That in someways is a sad fact about the way human psychology works, but it is because of that fact that deterrence works. Deterrence is a hugely important principle in international affairs. Don't put your civilian population at risk. Care for it and think what can be done to ensure it is safe. When a population is seized by an organisation which does not want to protect the civilian population under its military power more than anything else then that population comes under great danger. Israel has an obligation to protect its civilian population - to not persue policies which put its civilian population at risk. If Hamas seized an Israeli hospital Israel should do everything it can to protect those captured. If Hamas used a Palestinian hospital to launch missiles into Israel International Law acknowledges that hospital would lose its protections and becomes a legitimate target - International law acknowledges the Israeli military will consider protecting its civilian population before the Palestinian population. I've quoted this before. Machiavelli in his Art of War called war at best honourable acts of evil. War is brutish and governments are biased to protecting their civilians more than those in other states. Don't be surprised by this truth. Rather see it as the main way of ensuring deterrence and worry greatly when military leaders abandon it. Biden tried very hard to deter Putin before he invaded Ukraine. Israel has tried to ensure Hamas understood the consequences it it attacked Israel. Those warning were ignored. It is a huge humanitarian disaster they were. Pity the populations of Russia and Gaza for being ruled by such people. And I've little doubt, Bibi's days are numbered for exactly the same reason.

Has a hospital been directly targeted? There are 2 examples I'm aware of. 1) Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which I think it is reasonably clear now was due to Islamic Jihad. 2) The targeting of an ambulance outside the Al-Shifa Hospital which the IDF says was due to it being used by Hamas fighters. Israel is raising the truth that under international law combatants that use hospitals cause the hospital to lose its protected status. I very much agree that hospitals should not be bombed - #DontBombHospitals directly requires #DontPutHospitalsAtRisk From the ICRC: In which circumstances can medical establishments and units lose their protection granted by IHL? Specific protection of medical establishments and units (including hospitals) is the general rule under IHL. Therefore, specific protection to which hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used by a party to the conflict to commit, outside their humanitarian functions, an "act harmful to the enemy". In case of doubt as to whether medical units of establishments are used to commit an "act harmful to the enemy", they should be presumed not to be so used. The expression "act harmful to the enemy" is not defined under IHL. This body of law merely singles out a few acts expressly recognized as not being harmful to the enemy, such as the carrying or using of individual light weapon in self-defense or defense of wounded and sick; armed guarding of a medical facility; or the presence in a medical facility of sick or wounded combatants no longer taking part in hostilities. Notwithstanding the lack of an agreed definition, the rationale for a loss of protection is clear. Medical establishments and units enjoy protection because of their function of providing care for the wounded and sick. When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed. This would be the case for example if a hospital is used as a base from which to launch an attack; as an observation post to transmit information of military value; as a weapons depot; as a center for liaison with fighting troops; or as a shelter for able-bodied combatants. Helix, do you think there are any responsibilities on Hamas here? Don't you get they are deliberately doing this?

Not clear what time period you're asking about (well, obviously post-1948!) but most Israelis who are on Palestinian land since then are there by force, having ejected the locals with violence. See: West Bank etc. I'm talking 48-67. Were Jewish communities under Arab rule subject to any form of toleration in this time period?

I find this one another lefty blind spot. Of course there are Jews who are anti-zionist. Many for ultra-orthodox religious reasons which I have to admit are a bit beyond me ... anyone any idea why certain sects of ultra-orthodox are anti-Zionist? But for the general population of Israel - ordinary Jews who for the first time in generations have the reality of a sovereign state there to protect them from invasion, pogroms and discrimination I can fully understand why they feel anti-Zionist views are a threat to their lives and security. They are genuinely scared what would have happened if Egypt and Syria and Iraq and Saudi and Jordon etc etc had succeeded in their multiple attempts to invade and destroy Israel's sovereignty. They have experienced multiple times what would happen if the likes of Hamas gained power over their communities. They know, and bloodly hell Helix, I hope you have to honesty to acknowledge what the result would be. Ordinary Jews see anti-Zionism as being directly linked to attempts to remove their security. I can't comprehend how anyone can think Israel loosing any of the wars fought against it would not have resulted in mass killings of Jews. For me chants of "From the River to the Sea" are chants to put Jews in fear of ruthless pogroms. Especially when Jews have just experienced the worst pogrom since the Nazis.

My understanding is that Arab Eastern Jerusalem will be Palestine's capital. I remember the Economist Magazine calling for the US to open Palestinian Liaison office there, as well as the Embassy in Israeli Jerusalem, to show a commitment to a 2-states solution. Lots of Arabs DO live in Jerusalem. As I've posted before - multiple thousands have returned, but that required acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and most do not.

You do understand an awful lot of that land was the Nagev desert? It was uninhabited wilderness and has taken huge ingenuity and efforts to create successful communities within it. The Kibbutz system is one of the most fascinating social movements in the world and they made the desert bloom.

I have to say ... I think this is also profoundly short-sighted. How do you think that Jewish person born in Brooklyn got to Brooklyn? Are you willing to acknowledge it is highly highly likely that person is the survivor of multiple attempts at genocide and millennia of pogroms and was only able to get to immigrate into the US during quite short periods of sympathy to Jewish immigrants in the 1930s and post-war period. This is Max Power's point at the top of this page. Israel's demographics are highly complex. Many of its population are descendants of jews deported from Arab countries, other's from Eastern Europe, other's who were 2nd class citizens under the Ottomans. There is a high likelihood that boy from Brooklyn is the first Jew in generations who thought he could live without fear of pogroms against his and his families life. ... and then Hamas turned up at his door.

Thanks Helix ... so with the acceptance of Israel, our next sticking point is the right of return. So I think your view is that every Palestinian who wishes to should be able to return to Israel. And every one of their descendants? Is that correct?

I am very much stuck. The Nakba was a consequence of two things - 1) the creation of Israel AND 2) the Arab invasions attempting to snuff out its creation. The narratives Helix has strongly imbibed place all responsibility on to 1) and massively downplay 2). It is basically impossible to unpick these things ... but the existence of successful Arab and Bedouin populations in Israel (far wealthier than West Bank and Gazan equivalents, some of whom serve with pride in the IDF) does in many ways put the lie to the claims Israel is genocidal to Arab populations. If you stayed in your village (and yes likely defended it - there was a war on) Israel accepted that reality. That's an interesting historical question - what happened to Jewish communities which ended up in what had been earmarked as Palestinian land in 1948? Were they welcome to stay. Come on Helix with your encyclopaedic and unbiased expertise of the region, what happened to these communities, were they also accepted?

I'm trying to think how to engage with Helix. Firstly Helix do you accept the settled reality of Israel? Or do you want to see its sovereignty revoked? This is sort of the flip side of the question to P.K. do you acknowledge sovereignty was given to a Palestinian state by UN181 which also provides the sovereign legitimacy of Israel. The Arab annexation of that sovereignty and subsequent occupation by Israel doesn't change in International law that BOTH Israel and Palestine have sovereign status. Helix, do you think a reasonable political aim is to revoke Israel's sovereign status? P.K. ditto re: Palestine's?

Jinx yessir.

The War in Yemen where we arm the Saudi air force via BAe.

What-about-ism is a pretty weak argument and also there have been, albeit smaller, demonstrations against the conflicts racking the Muslim world, but as in all caricatures there is something true here. Israel is held to a higher standard. Why? Because some people think Jews don't deserve to live there, because some people don't like Jews, because some people think they are excessive (though the comparisons show they actually aren't - Mosel, Fallujah, Allepo), and also because some people think they should be held to a higher standard - they should be better than those that oppose them. I don't know. War is hell. As the over a million Muslims killed in conflict this century know (noteworthy omission from the image the 300,000 Muslims killed in Iraq). Complex world.

I find myself very much in agreement with the German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck. Well worth spending 10 mins reading the subtitles!

I read Prof Jerry Coyne every day and his whyevolutionistrue website is one of my start up pages. This morning he said this: The death toll, of course, largely reflects the Palestinians using civilians as human shields, locating military forces, headquarters, and missile launches in heavily-populated areas, or under sensitive sites like hospitals. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/11/03/friday-hili-dialogue-447/ Is this true? Is this relevant to the terrible war unleashed by the events of October 7?

Just providing context ... a lot is made that Gaza is hugely over-populated ... in fact it's population density isn't so exceptional for the area: I fully agree population density isn't the main issue: it's the governance and freedoms the population are under. But a lot is made about how crammed in the inhabitance of Gaza are - meh, Jerusalem, Aman and Tel Aviv live in similar densities. The challenge is how to provide the governance and freedoms without violence breaking out. Just to note I really like the Pudding as a visualisation of population density: https://pudding.cool/2018/10/city_3d/

Just spent an hour watching old Friends episodes. Happy memories that in some way shaped my generation. Just funny happy silly programmes. So sad what brought such happiness to so many brought such misery to him. Addiction is one horrid thing. Keep away from too much booze, too many pills and doctors bribed by drug companies to prescribe them. RIP.