Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Its the manner thats the issue- our choice of retaliation is not only utterly worthless, it is has having the completely predictable effect of making it worse, hardening anti-Western sentiment, firming determination not to be seen to be cowed by the West, particularly not America, and increasing resistance and support for the Houthis.
This course of action has no good result, has no possible end game, and will not reduce attacks on shipping. As a strategy therefore it's utterly awful. }}

[halfwise]

The strategy of punching back at someone who punches you often does not end well, but it's difficult to argue it's a pointless strategy.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ That strategy is only viable if it's the only possible one. Thats not the case here. First a ceasefire, removing any justification they have for attacking shipping.
I actually think it unlikely they would continue after that, mainly as they are a proxy of Iran, not entirely as they are semi-independent, but they rely on Iran to keep armed and existing. And Iran has no interest in stopping shipping in the area, if they did they would have got their proxies to do this long before now. This is directly tied to the events in Gaza which is why its happening now.
Iran, like China and till recently Russia play the game of rule bending, pushing against and often just over the line, but never doing it so openly or blatantly that it calls down direct retaliation, or worse risks all out war. This is not in Iran's playbook, never has been.
Therefore not only would a ceasefire remove justification, it would also put Iran in a position where it can be pressed, via Russia and China, to put pressure on the Houthis.

What won't stop anything is bombing them- I believe America is now onto strike number 5 or 6 on the Houthis since the first, and the difference so far? It's got worse. }}

[Lancebloke]

Removing justification?

I assume you mean remove the reason that they are using to justify because it isn't a justification of their actions any more than Israels is of what they are doing right now.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ If you prefer 'cover story' that's fine, it is, but its truth or not is not the important point. That they are using it for justification is, and they have explicitly stated the terms for stopping doing it is a ceasefire in Gaza and the entry of humanitarian aid. Threat and terms. They have given both.

If they get those terms, the same as most in the world want anyway, then they have a choice - keep doing it and lose any cover they had given themselves, break their word (that can matter in the Arab world more than in a lot of the West) and risk losing support with Iran, because Russia does not want shipping stopped, they had a ship hit last week, and like the rest of the global economy it can't really take another massive shock as major trade disruption will once again push inflation back through the roof. It's in no one's interest for them to continue after a ceasefire, including their own. And all it takes is a ceasefire most folk already want.

edit add- though I do expect they will still take the occasional potshot at US and possibly UK shipping, particularly military, both to show they have not been cowed by the US, and because they can continue the justification for it- that so long as we supply Israel with the funds and means to conduct its war, and particularly if we use our veto over a ceasefire again on behalf of Israel we count as enemy combatants. We've used less justification ourselves in wars a few times so we can't really say it's not fair.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ So Biden got on the phone to Netanyahu and said there has to be a 2-state solution. The response from him?

'I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area west of Jordan – and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.'- Netanyahu

This has been backed up by further statements from other members of his criminal government, such as the Finance Minister who said, “I do deny a Palestinian state. Always!”

So now it's utterly and unequivocally clear that Israel wants the annihilation of Palestine and the removal of its people one way or another, and are openly saying so, will the US and West continue its unequivocal backing for the continued atrocities and crimes against humanity Israel is now openly committing?

In light of recent comments coming from Israel I also don't see how the ICC cannot charge Israel with crimes, and the ICJ's preliminary findings are surely going to support South Africa's case after this.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Well I got my answer, at least as far as what the UK will do, we will keep supporting them anyway regardless!
According to Shapps the UK Defence Sec-

'"Palestinians deserve a sovereign state, Israel deserves to have the full ability to defend itself, its own security. Unless you pursue a two-state solution, I really don't see that there is another solution."
He added there were a variety of views within the Israeli government "so we very much distinguish between the views of individuals and our overall support for Israel as a country".

2 things here. First the idea that a 2 state solution is the only possible outcome and is the best all round for all relies on sanity, reason and that's not what we are dealing with here, we are dealing with a government who seriously believe they have to restore Israel to its King David boundaries and rebuild the Temple of Solomon in order for their Messiah to appear, we are dealing with out and out madness.

Secondly the idea that the Israeli government is made up of different voices is a bit like if during Boris reign as leader of the Tories you pointed to some ineffectual nobody on the back benches and said we'd talk to them as if they were the party, no they were not and dealing with them would have altered Boris not a jot. Same here, the Israeli government is utterly dominated by the far right and religious extremists and Netanyahu is a long term criminal, for him a lot of this war is about clinging to power and not facing accountability for Oct 7th. There may be a few other dissident voices in the depths of the Israeli government but they are irrelevant and have no authority or power.
But it seems they are the straws we will clutch too in order to justify continuing support for Israeli atrocities.}}

[Lancebloke]

You are also dealing with groups that are committed to the destruction of Israel so even if there were some level heads on the Israeli side there are others that don't want peace either.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Of the two sides I know who sounds most conciliatory.
Hamas put out an interesting report of their own today on the events of Oct 7th.

'The report stresses the historical context of the conflict and the injustices that Palestinians have endured for decades, saying that Israel has been intensifying its abuses under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government. It adds that the October 7 attack was a “natural response” to the Israeli push to liquidate the Palestinian cause.'

This bit is fair enough in terms of why they felt they had to act (without justifying in any way their choice of action, but the IRA for example had less justification in this regard for their actions, but we still found a route to peace with them), under this Israeli government settler violence was increasing day on day with the tacit approval of the government, and all the other issues with keeping an entire people confined behind walls in a limited area with limited access.

'Hamas rejects accusations that it deliberately targeted civilians during the attack – in which almost 1,140 people were killed, including 700 civilians – pointing to media reports about Israeli troops targeting cars and homes with Israelis inside. But the report acknowledges that disorder had ensued during the attack as the Israeli security apparatus collapsed swiftly around Gaza.'

This fits with early reports that the instruction form the top was to take hostages,not harmcivilains. There is also some truth in the Israeli response wrongly shooting civilians in the confusion about what was going on, mistaking them for terrorists. This has been reported on in many places.
But the last bit is interesting, they've tried to word it as mildly as possible but it is still an admission they lost control of their people during it. It also implies they expected much more Israeli security and response, and it was the unexpected lack of it which gave the time and space for the massacre that ensued.

'The report urges an investigation into “all crimes in occupied Palestine” by the International Criminal Court, calling on its prosecutor to “immediately” start a probe on the ground.'

This one is rather telling, they do not exclude their own actions from investigation, and this tells me they are sure that Israeli crimes at this point far outnumber their own.

'The Palestinian group reiterates that it is in a conflict against Israel, not against Jews because of their religion.'

This is also important as it's largely new, they are trying to frame it as an oppressive government occupying an oppressed people, and that their fight therefore is against the state oppressing them, not its people or their beliefs. This is an important step forward. And it's here Hamas sound the more conciliatory than Israel do. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

'You are also dealing with groups that are committed to the destruction of Israel so even if there were some level heads on the Israeli side there are others that don't want peace either.'- Lance

Its not Hamas who have opposed a 2 state solution all this time, Hamas altered their 1988 charter, which called for a Palestinian state that would include what is currently Israel, in 2017. The new charter calls for a 2 state solution and recognises Israel right to exist. It's a complete myth Hamas want all the land for Palestinians, and has been for 7 years now.

In those 7 years Hamas have made peace offers to Israel in return for the removal of illegal settlements 5 times, Israel have rejected every one and continued to expand their illegal settlements instead.

And just yesterday Hamas offered the return of ALL remaining hostages in return for a ceasefire - Israel said no.

So who really is the obstacle to peace here? Only one side is saying there cannot be peace, only one side is advocating the wiping out of the other and the occupation of their land, only one side is indiscriminately massacring civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure including hospitals and refugee facilities, only one side is starving the other out and denying access to aid and help. And it's not Hamas.}}

[halfwise]

"And just yesterday Hamas offered the return of ALL remaining hostages in return for a ceasefire - Israel said no."

That's pretty head spinning.

[Pettytyrant101]

“I reject outright the terms of surrender of the monsters of Hamas,” Netanyahu said on Sunday. He repeated his opposition to an independent Palestinian state, insisting he would not compromise on “full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan”.

{{ Like I said, it's not Hamas who are in the way of a diplomatic solution to this crisis, it's Israel. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ If you look at the history of back and forth between Hamas and Israel through official channels a pattern quickly emerges-

1988, 1 year after Hamas formed Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar met the late top Israeli officials Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, and proposed that Israel withdraw from the 1967-occupied territories in exchange for a truce. It was rejected by Israel.

1994- Hamas offered a truce to Israel after the abduction and killing of Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman. A year earlier, the Palestinian Authority (PA) had accepted the proposal of a Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Hamas agreed to that proposal. Israel rejected it.

1995- Hamas propose a 10 year ceasefire on condition of Israeli withdrawal from illegal settlements. Israel rejected it.

1996- Israel assassinate the Hamas leader, Hamas again offer a truce. Israel again rejects it.

1997- Hamas repeat their 10 year truce offer. Israel continues to reject it.

1999- Hamas appeal to Europe, offering to end all hostilities towards Israel in return for withdrawal from Palestinian lands and the release of prisoners. Israel rejects it.

2003- Hamas leader Yasin repeats the truce offer to Israel. They reject it and assassinate him four months later.

2004- Yasin's successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, tries again and reissues the truce offer. Israel reject it and assassinate him too within a month.

2006 - Hamas tries again offering the 10 year truce again with the addition that it is “automatically renewed if [Israel] commits to restoring the full and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to them within a final solution that matches what is accepted by the PLO”. Israel rejects it.

2008-09- Hamas new leadership again reoffers the 10 year deal. Israel again reject it.

2014 and 15 the offer is remade repeatedly and rejected by Israel every time.

2017- Hamas revises its Charter to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, recognising Israel's right to statehood and existence.


I've been trying to find peace offers going the other way from Israel to the Palestinians. But I can't find a single one. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Been rather annoyed by the reporting around the covid enquiry in Scotland, its so blatantly misleading. Now I expect this from our right wing tabloid press, they distort, invent and outright lie where Scotland and especially the SNP are concerned, but the BBC have been among the worst.
Here's a classic example, this is the story, its headline and tagline below as presented on the BBC News main page.

'Chief Medic Told Staff to Delete Whatsapp every day' -Prof Gregory Smith   has told the Uk Covid Inquiry he erased messages "frequently" during pandemic.'


Which sounds bad. But what they have put under the headline is the first 2 of 3 opening lines of the actual piece, the third, rather crucial line is, "He said any "pertinent" information about "definitive" decision making was recorded via email.'

Kind of changes the complexion somewhat when you find out it has been longstanding Scottish government policy to erase any whatsapp or similar used medium as they are not considered secure, and anything which counts as government business or is official has to be first recorded in another secure form for the records. Something not done at Westminster.
The BBC are perfectly aware many, if not the majority of folk just read the headlines and never read the full story, but the fact the explanation was in the very next line they omitted is particularly telling. It's clear it's a deliberately deceptive headline that casts negativity on the Scottish government in an election year.
This is a follow-up to earlier in the week when the right wing press ran with a story claiming Sturgeon had got rid of all her messages too, not mentioning that in fact the reason she had not submitted whatsapp messages to the inquiry was that she never used whatsapp for government business during the pandemic, and all her submissions the enquiry already has.


And back in the ME idiot us and the daft Yanks have bombed the Houthis again, it has gone so well and been so effective so far we've just kept on doing it, eight times so far. But don't worry, our joint governments assure us the aim is to de-escalate war in the region by adding more war to it, that's always worked out well for us in the past! }}}}

[Mrs Figg]

eh? you think the BBC is right wing? I have to tell you they are about as left wing as its possible to go before outright commie.

And I hope they bomb the fucking Houthis to blazes. They are making international shipping grind to a halt, and that affects everyone All our economies rely on Suez.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I think the BBC is staunchly Unionist (clues in the name). It just so happens so are the right wing UK press.

As to the Houthis it's a stupid strategy that will only make things worse. It will do nothing to stop the Houthis, it has done nothing to stop them save up their determination, it's inflaming anti-western sentiment in the region destabilising it even more than it already is, uniting previously hostile groups against us and it has done zero to protect shipping, in fact its made it more risky as the Houthis are determined to show they can still strike.

What should be done is the world should first sanction Israel, not just freezing cash but stopping all arms supplies, exactly as we did when Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. They both use the same justification- going after terrorist groups, they are both in breach of the same fundamental international law- we have to be seen to be fair and even handed.
The conditions for lifting sanctions should be an immediate ceasefire and an entry into internationally run negotiations for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside security assurances for Israel, the entry into Palestine of aid agencies and the International Criminal Court to assess crimes on all sides.
If we do this we take away Houthi justification and we break the support for them which is growing as a direct result of our current strategy.

If we continue this pointless bombing eventually we will screw up, something will go astray and there will be civilian casualties and the situation will explode, and it will be all our fault. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Nobody in their right mind is going to sanction Israel. Calling for a ceasefire is a good idea though.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Israel have made it unequivocally clear they will not have a ceasefire-

Netanyahu repeated his opposition to an independent Palestinian state, insisting he would not compromise on “full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan”.
He also refused any deal, any compromise, and Israel says its war has months yet to run. That cannot be allowed.
Sanctions need to be applied for two reasons - firstly as it stands the West are utter hypocrites, acting immediately to sanction perceived enemies such as Russia whilst funding Israel for breaking the exact same international laws, except Israel has gone so much further in breaking international law- collective punishment, attacking hospitals, refugee camps, residential housing, cutting off water and food supplies to an entire population, forced relocation by military force, desecration of graveyards, the massacre of 250,000 people, the list goes on and on.

The second reason is that Israel has made it clear they will not stop till they have entire control over the Gaza strip, therefore sanctions and withdrawal of military support is crucial to force Israel's hand. Without it the massacres will continue day after day unchecked. And we will be as guilty for every innocent death, every child murdered as Israel if we do nothing to prevent it when we could. }}

[halfwise]

The difference between Israel and Russia is that Israel actually DID suffer a horrendous terrorist attack. This muddies the waters quit a bit. Due to 9-11 America can't sanction Israel for defending itself; so the question comes down to whether Israel can defend itself effectively without committing war crimes. We definitely want to believe it can, but it's a difficult line to draw at times. To me (and even according to the Biden administration) Israel has been crossing that line, but can war crimes be stopped without stopping the war?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I think Russia would give you a debate on that Halfy- there were many attacks in the Donbass region against Russian citizens and interests by far right Ukrainian terrorist groups prior to Russia taking action. Israel certainly has a much clearer claim to legitimate retaliation, but fundamentally the international laws being broken are the same, save Israel has gone way, way further.

The other problem is that Israel shows no signs it wants to stop killing Palestinians or forcibly moving them from their land- in fact many of the Israeli ministers have said so- saying there are no civilians in Gaza so all Palestinians are targets, talking of shipping Palestinians abroad in a diaspora, or trying to shove them into the Sinai. Israel in short has made it clear they are not going to stop what they are doing, and what they are doing is indiscriminate mass murder.
We either oppose that no matter who conducts it, or we live as hypocrites in the eyes of the world and only accuse our enemies and never our friends.

And on a level of our own security if we stand by until either every Palestinian is dead or has been forcibly removed then Saudi and every other major Muslim country have already said they will not normalise relations with Israel without a 2 state solution, and if we allow Israel to wipe out Palestine, countries like Saudi will have no choice but to respond, their own people will demand it of them never mind Yemen, Hezbollah and Iran and such. It would be the worst disaster, for us too. }}

[halfwise]

There were attacks against Russian citizens (actually planted combat veterans) on Ukrainian soil, which is very different from Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil. If there had been Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil, you'd have your equivalency, but that's not what happened.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You have forgotten Odessa and the Black Sea- large parts of which are Russian legal territory, recognised internationally.

'In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine’s turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2 May in the Black Sea port of Odessa. Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in. There is not even an official list of the dead, and none of the pro-Ukraine activists involved have been put on trial. Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity. At least one participant formally accused of murder and attempted murder remains free while awaiting trial.
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics. Russian officials have compared the events to Nazi war crimes, and many Russian fighters battling Kiev in eastern Ukraine cite what happened in Odessa as their motivation for joining the separatist cause.' - The Guardian

And that was just one in a succession of incidents that led up to the current situation. So how many need to be killed before it's legitimate to retaliate? }}

[halfwise]

I can find now reference to parts of Odessa being legally recognized as part of Russia. 85% of Odessa voted to be part of Ukraine in 1991, so if there is an official Russian enclave it can't be very large.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ It was Russia's fourth-largest city, even after Ukraine took over technical authority of it its population was still majority Russian, and its language was Russian.

Let's say a hypothetical- Texas gives land back to Mexico, towns in that area are still majority US with either US citizenship or dual nationality as a result. Then a few years later a Mexican terrorist groups starts attacking and murdering those US citizens. Do you honestly think the US response would be, "well it's not in America any more so it's not our problem, we won't do or say anything"? Because I'd find that very unlikely. And if we would respond to such an event I fail to see why we expect Russia not too.}}

[Lancebloke]

Did you copy and paste the list of things/dates above?

Because the last one about accepting Israel as a state is not true. The 2017 document also states what it considers Palestinian borders and that it is not giving up any rights in potentially agreeing to 1967 borders.

Seems very contradictory to me and very much open to the interpretation of Israel, or the Zionist project, still needing to be eradicated.