Back in January 2009, Israel had unleashed a shocking new stage of mass killing in the Gaza Strip, calling its ferocious bombing campaign Operation Cast Lead. It killed 1,400 Palestinians in 22 days; the number of casualties on the Israeli side was 13. That was the last straw for me, and after years of reticence I came out publicly in support of the Palestinian-led call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights, known as BDS.
So, how and when do we get Hamas to sign up to those same bits of international alw and universal principles of human rights? And what do we do about it if they won’t?
why exactly was it that in “2009, Israel had unleashed a shocking new stage of mass killing in the Gaza Strip” ?
For laughs ?
For a bet ?
Answers on a mortar shell to the usual address.
Wow, so Israel has been genociding the Arabs for 15 years?
Why are they so bad at genocide?
’Lead. It killed 1,400 Palestinians in 22 days; the number of casualties on the Israeli side was 13. ’
If such a discrepancy appals, how many innocents did Hamas slaughter on 7th Oct, versus how many of the murdering terrorists ate a bullet?
@Steve
“Wow, so Israel has been genociding the Arabs for 15 years?
Why are they so bad at genocide?”
The U.S. Census Bureau International Database data estimates that Gaza’s Palestinian population increased from only 265,800 in 1960 to 342,700 in 1970, 431,600 in 1980, 645,100 in 1990, 1,1 million in 2000, 1.5 million in 2010, and 2.1 million in 2023.
It is a strange kind of proportionality that insists you must ensure you have the same number of casualities as you inflict on the enemy.
Should the Israelis start shooting some of their own soldiers or not treat their own injured?
If you don’t want terrible consequences, you should not poke the bear. The problem in this case is that Hamas welcomes the deaths of Palestinian civilians for propaganda purposes and does everything it can to ensure they happen.
Of course this is Naomi Klein we are dealing with here.
Rational argument, let alone thought ate not her strong points.
‘So, how and when do we get Hamas to sign up to those same bits of international law and universal principles of human rights? And what do we do about it if they won’t?’
If you can ever solve this one Tim, please tell me the answer.
The problem in this case is that Hamas welcomes the deaths of Palestinian civilians for propaganda purposes and does everything it can to ensure they happen.
Including shooting them themselves should any try to walk away from various hospitals.
This type of thinking has been termed the “Converse Callicles Principle”, after the character in Plato’s dialogues who thought that might was right and always justified.
Soppy wet liberals always side with the underdog, and always think that if a person or country is more powerful in a conflict, it is in the wrong if it exercises that power. American police carry guns, so shouldn’t ever use them against knife-wielding suspects. America has nukes, so should allow people who attack its embassies and forces around the world to do so with impunity. Israel is stronger than its neighbours, so should allow them the occasional rapey murderous incursion.
“And what do we do about it if they won’t?”
Precisely what the Israelis are now doing about it, perhaps?
Bboy – ‘So, how and when do we get Hamas to sign up to those same bits of international law and universal principles of human rights? And what do we do about it if they won’t?’
If you can ever solve this one Tim, please tell me the answer.
Godfrey of Bouillon solved the problem in 1099.
Andrew – but maybe those 2.1 million 70 IQ cousin fuckers identify as genocide victims?
As per His Kennyness, “You round them all up into a big field…”
At the time, it was humour, not an instruction manual.
I’ve extremely supportive of the Israeli’s No Fucks Given attitude to the eradication of HAMAS.
Eyal Waldman sums it up well at 02:15 in this BBC interview (after being quite open about wanting a solution to the Palestinian problem) where he states anyone involved will be eliminated – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av-embeds/67679634/vpid/p0gyfnyy
The U.S. Census Bureau International Database data estimates that Gaza’s Palestinian population increased from only 265,800 in 1960 to 342,700 in 1970, 431,600 in 1980, 645,100 in 1990, 1,1 million in 2000, 1.5 million in 2010, and 2.1 million in 2023.
Funny how the deepest shitholes have the highest birth rates, isn’t it?
@Philip
Nothing on telly.
Obviously some innocent Palestinians are being killed, and that’s terrible – though equally obviously the figures are being inflated by Hamas and the traitorous western media, which will keep on shilling for Islam right up until the day the offices of the Guardian get surprise Charlie Hebdoed for employing too many bummers, or women, or atheists.
It’s as simple as this.
Hamas was set up to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, everywhere.
It’s leaders have said they’ll do it. They want to do it. They don’t want to negotiate. They don’t want a ‘two state solution’. Oct 7 was just an hors d’ouevre.
‘Ordinary’ Palestinians danced jubilantly around semi-naked, half-dead Israeli girls who’d just been kidnapped from a peace festival and gang raped in pickup trucks on the way back over the border.
The Israelis could literally wipe Gaza off the map, not send their young lads in there to die in street fighting, and to be honest if I were Israel I might – it’s not like they’re getting any credit for not doing so.
If I were Mossad I might even be planning ops in more than a few western media offices, ‘charities’ and the like.
The west disgusts me. We don’t deserve to survive.
It never occurs to people like Naomi that if all the money donated to Gaza in the past 15 years had been spent on improving the lives of Palestinians instead of going to arm Hamas it would be one of the riches areas in the region. They could have built a thriving tourist industry as there’s some lovely beaches.
Instead they were impoverished by Hamas, sided and abetted by the UN.
My only surprise s that they haven’t got round to blaming Trump in some way. If he hadn’t pushed the Abraham accords and peace between Israel and other countries in the region
Iran and Hamas wouldn’t have felt threatened and isolated, could be one of their tortured reasoning processes.
‘Godfrey of Bouillon solved the problem in 1099.’
Thanks Steve.
When trying to figure out how he did it, I came across the following in World History Encyclopedia, ‘After a brief siege, the city was captured on 15 July 1099 CE and the population massacred. A Muslim relief army was defeated three weeks later’. (You’ll note they use CE, not good old AD. Typical.)
Obviously the best modern equivalent is to turn the whole place into a desert of radioactive glass. I usually find that this is the way to solve 99% of the world’s problems.
Of course if we hadn’t been stupid enough to keep them on the dole since the year I was born, they’d have had to either work or starve. As you’ve guessed, I’ve never willingly donated a penny to an overseas charity. But I’m sure the government has pissed away plenty of my taxes on this sort of nonsense.
A very good point Tim and one a lot of people don’t get when it comes to things like the Geneva Conventions etc – if your opponent refuses to sign up to them, you’re no longer required to obey them either. Which is why the US could use flamethrowers in the Pacific against Japan but not in Europe. And if you occupy a church as a defense point, it’s fair game. Generally speaking, Western democracies (including Israel) stick to the rules anyway because it’s good to be able to tell people if you surrender you’ll get treated well and shortens the battle.
In this case, maybe not so much. I saw something a while ago whining about the IDF stripping prisoners to their jocks, which was apparently an abuse of human rights. Ever dealt with suicide bombers, fuckwit?
Hamas still has hostages (assuming they are still alive) not that you’d know that from the media, where are all the bleeding heart liberals calling for the hostages to be released so that the conflict can end?
“Which is why the US could use flamethrowers in the Pacific against Japan but not in Europe.” Not true. US troops carried flamethrowers ashore on D-Day and used them against German fortifications,
As did the British, particularly in the form of the Churchill Crocodile tank variant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfTZEsMh0oM
Thank you for the corrections. Was it some other weapon I was thinking of that was allowed against Japan as a non signatory?
The Crocodile really was formidable and lives in legend because some were used to incinerate concentration camps.
Actions against water supplies sre strictly forbidden under the GD. The Dambusters raid would be illegal today. I think that is regardless of whether the other side signed up or not.
Godfrey of Bouillon solved the problem in 1099
They’ve been stewing ever since.
That’s the problem with Crusader solutions. They only last a thousand years and then you’ve got to do it all over again.
@ZT (and others)
“Which is why the US could use flamethrowers in the Pacific against Japan but not in Europe.” Not true. US troops carried flamethrowers ashore on D-Day and used them against German fortifications,
The Germans themselves were keen on the old Flammenwerfer. Excellent for clearing trenches and machine gun nests/pillboxes. But the operator’s life expectancy was very low if he was careless enough to be caught alive.