2023 Israel - Hamas war

[GRALISTAIR]

I also find that any sympathy towards the Government is temporary. People might have briefly supported Bush in the immediate week or two after 9/11, but after he decided to declare war on Afghanistan (thus risking further retaliatory terrorist attacks as well as obviously hurting innocent Afghan people) I suspect sympathy dropped away markedly and turned to anger - and that was certainly the case in the 2003 Iraq war.

Yet Bush went on to win the presidential election the following year by a bigger margin than his previous win.
As for the Falklands, Thatcher/Conservatives won an absolute landslide victory in the GE the following year.

 

[nw1]

Yet Bush went on to win the presidential election the following year by a bigger margin than his previous win.

Of course, the USA was sharply divided, as the well-known "Jesusland" meme from 2004 illustrates. The key west and east coast states all went to the Democrats. This geographical division is still there of course, with the USA split into pro-Trump and anti-Trump geographical areas.

As for the Falklands, Thatcher/Conservatives won an absolute landslide victory in the GE the following year.

Mostly due to dissatisfaction with Foot and the resulting split in the opposition vote due to the SDP, I suspect, with a dose of the distortion that the FPTP system produces. Very like the 2019 election, I suspect, when the outcome was down more to fear of Corbyn (rightly or wrongly) than love for Boris. I suspect most adults of 1983 (disclaimer: I was not an adult of 1983, so just speculating) cared more about high unemployment (arguably the big issue of the early 80s) than they did about the Falklands.

Thatcher only obtained 42.4% and the combined Labour and Alliance vote was greater than that of the Tories, and indeed topped 50% (50.7%). The myth that a majority of UK adults of 1983 were adulators of Thatcher is just that, a myth. More than half of us voted for either Labour or the Alliance. There was a 1.5% swing against the Tories in 1983, with respect to 1979. More than 11 in every 20 adults who voted, did not vote for Thatcher in 1983. Our FPTP system in action once again, producing an outcome that didn't represent the views of the population as a whole. 1983 and 2019 must surely be the two elections which have achieved the most unrepresentative outcome in recent times.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes, I think a huge part of the problem is that violence on both sides has become so ingrained that there's no way out of it. The only possible solution I can see is an agreement between Israel and the more responsible Arab countries to place the West Bank and Gaza under UN control, with the Arab countries taking the lead. But they don't seem particularly willing to do so, and in the region, Jordan and Syria both have large amounts of Palestinian refugees while Egypt simply doesn't want them.

Still, I maintain that the only way that lasting peace can ever be achieved is by an agreement between Israel and the leading powers in the region.

I’m inclined to agree.

If the Israelis succeed in removing Hamas, will that make other countries more willing to step up? I honestly don’t know, but I can see how it could (assuming the regular shootouts stop of course).

 

[Busaholic]

Complete rubbish of course, criticising Netanyahu does not make you anti-Semitic any more than criticising Erdogan makes you Islamophobic, or criticising Braverman makes you racist.

Starmer in particular is absolutely fixated on anti-Semitism though. He would doubtless claim that his position has to be maintained to ensure Jeremy Corbyn and those of a like mind to his still within Labour are banished forever. I think he's listening to the weasly Mandelson too much. This matters because Starmer's almost certainly going to be our P.M. within the year.

 

[nw1]

Starmer in particular is absolutely fixated on anti-Semitism though. He would doubtless claim that his position has to be maintained to ensure Jeremy Corbyn and those of a like mind to his still within Labour are banished forever. I think he's listening to the weasly Mandelson too much. This matters because Starmer's almost certainly going to be our P.M. within the year.

To be fair you can understand it from his perspective (even though I disagree with his stance on Netanyahu's actions) because he's frightened people will use the "anti-Semitic" slur against Labour if he is at all strongly critical of Netanyahu. This would of course not be anti-Semitic but I suspect there are many on the right who will be quick to use the slur if he gave such harsh criticism.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mostly due to dissatisfaction with Foot and the resulting split in the opposition vote due to the SDP, I suspect, with a dose of the distortion that the FPTP system produces.

I don't think you can separate the 1983 Tory landslide from the Falklands. As I recall, right up until the day Argentina invaded the Falklands in early 1982, opinion polls were consistently showing that a general election would produce a huge Lib/SDP Alliance victory, with Labour and the Tories both incredibly unpopular (Labour because of Michael Foot and perceived extremism, the Tories because of high unemployment etc.). That changed almost overnight as the invasion and the UK's resultant 'taskforce' unfolded, with Mrs. Thatcher suddenly acquiring her 'Iron Lady' reputation and the Tories leaping back in front in the polls - a position which they then held through to the general election a year later.

I think it's fair to say that, if Argentina hadn't invaded the Falklands, politics would almost certainly have taken a very different turn after 1983.

 

[nw1]

I don't think you can separate the 1983 Tory landslide from the Falklands. As I recall, right up until the day Argentina invaded the Falklands in early 1982, opinion polls were consistently showing that a general election would produce a huge Lib/SDP Alliance victory, with Labour and the Tories both incredibly unpopular (Labour because of Michael Foot and perceived extremism, the Tories because of high unemployment etc.). That changed almost overnight as the invasion and the UK's resultant 'taskforce' unfolded, with Mrs. Thatcher suddenly acquiring her 'Iron Lady' reputation and the Tories leaping back in front in the polls - a position which they then held through to the general election a year later.

I think it's fair to say that, if Argentina hadn't invaded the Falklands, politics would almost certainly have taken a very different turn after 1983.

I realise this is going OT for Israel/Palestine, but looking back it seems a bit strange that people abandoned their, IMO, justified low opinion of the Tories at the time just because of the Falklands conflict. One would think, looking back, the domestic problems would take precedence.

(Again I was some way off being an adult in 1983 - I couldn't vote in '87, let alone '83 - and had no political opinions at the time, so realise I probably didn't fully "get" the political zeitgeist; my comments are based on looking back at the period retrospectively through the eyes of an adult).

(Conversation continued in the Sunak thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nservative-party.238681/page-168#post-6472015)

 

[Busaholic]

I realise this is going OT for Israel/Palestine, but looking back it seems a bit strange that people abandoned their, IMO, justified low opinion of the Tories at the time just because of the Falklands conflict. One would think, looking back, the domestic problems would take precedence.

(Again I was some way off being an adult in 1983 - I couldn't vote in '87, let alone '83 - and had no political opinions at the time, so realise I probably didn't fully "get" the political zeitgeist; my comments are based on looking back at the period retrospectively through the eyes of an adult).

(Conversation continued in the Sunak thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nservative-party.238681/page-168#post-6472015)

For the record, Michael Foot and the Labour Party as a whole were entirely supportive of the government's position on the Falklands conflict at the time; Foot was no pacifist, just anti nuclear weapons.

 

[brad465]

I really don’t understand how people can come out so strongly in support of either side, when neither can claim any kind of moral high ground. (I’m talking generally here, not specifically in relation to the events of the 7th of October, for which Hamas and their “handlers” are solely responsible).

There are two reasons why I think this happens: firstly the media like to pick sides and/or promote the extremes, which amplifies those who strongly support either side, even when the majority of the population likely doesn't. Second, there are some who support the enemies of who they really hate the most to advance their agenda of weakening/defeating their biggest enemy. Anti-US views, particularly on the extreme left, lead to greater support for the Palestinian cause, as the US and Israel have a special relationship, while those on the right who hate the left support Israel in the hope the left lose out on this issue.

 

[DustyBin]

There are two reasons why I think this happens: firstly the media like to pick sides and/or promote the extremes, which amplifies those who strongly support either side, even when the majority of the population likely doesn't. Second, there are some who support the enemies of who they really hate the most to advance their agenda of weakening/defeating their biggest enemy. Anti-US views, particularly on the extreme left, lead to greater support for the Palestinian cause, as the US and Israel have a special relationship, while those on the right who hate the left support Israel in the hope the left lose out on this issue.

Nail on head, and I’ve said similar elsewhere. There are people (particularly on the left as you say) who view Israel as little more than a US proxy. They’re not antisemitic, they’re simply anti-US. Of course, the “culture war” dictates that there must be an opposing group, equally dogmatic in their (pro-Israel) stance.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nail on head, and I’ve said similar elsewhere. There are people (particularly on the left as you say) who view Israel as little more than a US proxy. They’re not antisemitic, they’re simply anti-US. Of course, the “culture war” dictates that there must be an opposing group, equally dogmatic in their (pro-Israel) stance.

I don't think the support for Israel on the right has anything to do with the culture war, and it is also unlikely to be simply a reaction to people on the left taking the anti-Israel side. There has been been extensive, almost unqualified in many quarters, support for Israel for many decades - since long before cultural issues became a thing in UK politics. I would go along with previous suggestions that the pro-Israel stance of many in the West is mainly to do with geo-politics. More recently, it also probably hasn't helped the Palestinian cause in the West that Islamists have actually conducted numerous terror attacks in the West - something that radical Jews tend not to do (Yes I know that's a somewhat different issue and morally shouldn't impact concern about Palestinian rights, but inevitably it will do because of the Islamic association in people's minds).

 

[SynthD]

I don't think the support for Israel on the right has anything to do with the culture war

Christian denominations are one of the major culture wars of the previous few centuries. The Christian denominations that support Zionism (for Jesus's return) are far more significant in the US than Europe, especially from the end of WWII onwards, in opposition to communism.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think the support for Israel on the right has anything to do with the culture war, and it is also unlikely to be simply a reaction to people on the left taking the anti-Israel side. There has been been extensive, almost unqualified in many quarters, support for Israel for many decades - since long before cultural issues became a thing in UK politics. I would go along with previous suggestions that the pro-Israel stance of many in the West is mainly to do with geo-politics. More recently, it also probably hasn't helped the Palestinian cause in the West that Islamists have actually conducted numerous terror attacks in the West - something that radical Jews tend not to do (Yes I know that's a somewhat different issue and morally shouldn't impact concern about Palestinian rights, but inevitably it will do because of the Islamic association in people's minds).

Sorry I wrote that post quickly (and it was late!). I should have made it clear that I was referring to a subsection within each camp. I agree with you in regard to geopolitics, at governmental level especially.

 

[uglymonkey]

I find it utterly incredible that the IDF and its intelligence and billions were totally blindsided by the attack and a chain linked fence separating Gaza on some stretches? Seriously? Not even the Berlin Wall.

 

[Mogster]

I find it utterly incredible that the IDF and its intelligence and billions were totally blindsided by the attack and a chain linked fence separating Gaza on some stretches? Seriously? Not even the Berlin Wall.

The IRA nearly assassinated Margaet Thatcher. As they said “Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to be lucky once, you will have to be lucky always.”

 

[AndrewE]

I don't think the support for Israel on the right has anything to do with the culture war, and it is also unlikely to be simply a reaction to people on the left taking the anti-Israel side. There has been been extensive, almost unqualified in many quarters, support for Israel for many decades - since long before cultural issues became a thing in UK politics. I would go along with previous suggestions that the pro-Israel stance of many in the West is mainly to do with geo-politics. More recently, it also probably hasn't helped the Palestinian cause in the West that Islamists have actually conducted numerous terror attacks in the West - something that radical Jews tend not to do

Really? Haven't you heard of the Stern Gang? Look at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group) and the Israeli honour

In 1980, Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white, which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it, "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel"

The current treatment of the Palestinian population - already refugees having been unjustly turned off their historical holdings - can only breed more resentment and determination to resist or take revenge.
When you have nothing more to lose...

 

[kristiang85]

IDF says ground operations will be expanded tonight, which many analysts suspect might be the actual ground operation. Air strikes have been intense, and internet has been cut off the strip.

 

[Sorcerer]

I find it utterly incredible that the IDF and its intelligence and billions were totally blindsided by the attack and a chain linked fence separating Gaza on some stretches? Seriously? Not even the Berlin Wall.

Not particularly unimaginable given that 22 years ago the most heavily defended airspace in the world funded by a near trillion dollar military budget was blindsided by 19 Islamic radicals hijacking civilian aircraft and crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This isn't to suggest anything conspiracy related, merely to make the point that your enemies will occasionally get very lucky. Strangely enough, one could argue there being a few curious parallels in both situations such as the war hawks wanting to use it as justification for going to war against their enemy, but even more curiously, US support of Israel is often cited as a motive for terrorist attacks on Americans.

 

[uglymonkey]

Prior to the state of Israel, back to when the Roman's left has there always been endless slaughter and conflicts between the different groups, ethnic, religious and other peoples ?Or was there ever a time when they all lived in the region "happy ever after" ?

 

[Bluejays]

Prior to the state of Israel, back to when the Roman's left has there always been endless slaughter and conflicts between the different groups, ethnic, religious and other peoples ?Or was there ever a time when they all lived in the region "happy ever after" ?

I think Jerusalem itself has been subject to a good few invasions and sieges over time, not sure about the wider area.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Prior to the state of Israel, back to when the Roman's left has there always been endless slaughter and conflicts between the different groups, ethnic, religious and other peoples ?Or was there ever a time when they all lived in the region "happy ever after" ?

Endless slaughter and conflicts has been pretty much the norm across most of the World - and certainly including most of Western Europe - for most of recorded human history: We tend to forget how historically unusual the period since 1945 has been in Europe. I'm not an expert historian, but I don't get the impression the Middle East was any worse than most other regions in that regard, up until very recently.

 

[Bantamzen]

Endless slaughter and conflicts has been pretty much the norm across most of the World - and certainly including most of Western Europe - for most of recorded human history: We tend to forget how historically unusual the period since 1945 has been in Europe. I'm not an expert historian, but I don't get the impression the Middle East was any worse than most other regions in that regard, up until very recently.

Ah but the conflict in the Middle East has been ongoing for centuries between the three main Middle Eastern religions that formed in the region, over one small piece of land. It has to be the longest ongoing conflict in human history.

 

[brad465]

Last weekend a 100,000-strong protest in support of Palestine took place on Saturday, and given the current latest on the situation I would not be surprised if any this weekend was larger.

 

[Mogster]

Ah but the conflict in the Middle East has been ongoing for centuries between the three main Middle Eastern religions that formed in the region, over one small piece of land. It has to be the longest ongoing conflict in human history.

It does seem that there were long periods of tolerance and people just getting along. The Levant city states Antioch, Acre, Jaffa, Ascalon etc were big wealthy multi cultural trading posts. Goods and people (pilgrims = medieval tourists) were passing from East-West and strife was bad for business and business was good for… taxes. Access to religious sites was a big issue but pilgrims were frequently wealthy so granting easy access was again good for business.

When it went badly wrong there seems to be almost always influence from outside, the Romans, Christian Franks, hardline Islamists bringing lots of guys up for scrap. Frequently the motivator for these incursions is religion but money and regional power are more important, religion is almost an excuse. You also can’t casually band factions of the major religions together. Factions of the same religion would often be more hostile to one another than the obviously opposing religions. One of the main reasons that Latin control of the Levant persists so long is the deep seated divisions in the Muslim world. The Franks were continually able to ally with certain Islamic factions against other Muslim factions. The problems only really start for the Latin rulers when hard line islamists manage to unite several Muslim factions, often by force, Saladin, Baybars are examples.

 

[uglymonkey]

Also I think the whole area is ( or used to be) north/south and onwards, rather than getting in a ship across the Med.

 

[Mogster]

Also I think the whole area is ( or used to be) north/south and onwards, rather than getting in a ship across the Med.

Crossing Anatolia to the Bosporus was no joke back then. It’s very dry, mountainous and the passes were ideal bandit country.

 

[nw1]

Maybe there needs to be a separate thread for Western responses to the conflict, but a few things have come to light in the last two or three days which are more than a little disturbing.

Firstly the US actively votes against a ceasefire. The US government simply cannot seem to help taking the militaristic line in all these Middle Eastern conflicts, it seems. Deeply cynically, one wonders whether it's because they know US arms companies stand to make money the longer the conflict goes on.

Whatever, the US needs a real left-of-centre pacifist government, but this can't happen next year as the primary focus will be to stop Trump getting in again. Either way, yet again, the US is not looking good internationally.

The governments of Austria and Hungary join that of the US in this respect.

Full list of countries (from Al Jazeera)

Many European countries abstained, including the UK. European countries voting for the ceasefire included France, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Montenegro, Switzerland, and Slovenia. Another notable Western country is New Zealand.

Secondly, Cleverly seems to be a bit iffy in his attitude towards the London protests: something I heard yesterday suggests that he was urging protesters to be "careful of disinformation". What, the imaginary bombs falling on imaginary residential blocks in Gaza?

Thirdly the Mail and Express headlines this morning are pretty outrageous, appearing to infer that all protesters are supporters of terrorism, when it was only a very small number of people who were arrested. Just helps confirm my view that the Express, in particular, is a far-right paper (see for example previous headlines demonising and dehumanising all EU immigrants to the UK). Responsible retailers should boycott these two papers.

And then Netanyahu was on the radio yesterday, seeming, from my interpretation, to display a lack of urgency about getting the hostages released. To my mind, and I may be misinterpreting what he said, he seemed to be inferring that wiping Hamas out was more important than entering talks to get the hostages released.

Whatever, Netanyahu has scored a spectacular own goal. His international reputation in the eyes of many of us has gone completely down the plughole in the past two weeks: he's always been a strident right-winger but this exaggerated, over-the-top response has, IMV, made him look very, very bad indeed. A militaristic and aggressive hawk who believes violence is the only solution and who is making a bad situation many, many times worse, causing repercussions which I suspect we will all feel for years to come.

The one western power displaying some kind of measured, unbiased attitude right now appears to be France, which is often the case in Middle Eastern situations. I haven't always agreed with Macron in the past but right now he is, relatively speaking, the voice of sanity.

 

[DustyBin]

Maybe there needs to be a separate thread for Western responses to the conflict, but a few things have come to light in the last two or three days which are more than a little disturbing.

Firstly the US actively votes against a ceasefire. The US government simply cannot seem to help taking the militaristic line in all these Middle Eastern conflicts, it seems. Deeply cynically, one wonders whether it's because they know US arms companies stand to make money the longer the conflict goes on.

It’s a reasonable question!

I can’t decide here though whether the US actually has a strategy (beyond blindly supporting Israel). Ultimately, the Israelis aren’t going to listen to anyone (yet), so the US may be trying to keep them close and on at least some kind of leash.

In addition, there’s a clear “don’t get involved” message to the likes of Iran, which will hopefully prevent escalation.

Whatever, the US needs a real left-of-centre pacifist government, but this can't happen next year as the primary focus will be to stop Trump getting in again. Either way, yet again, the US is not looking good internationally.

The reality is that rightly or wrongly, the US is the world’s (self appointed) policeman. To be clear, they’ve made some disastrous interventions in this regard, and I’d like to see them be rather less trigger happy, however I dread to think who or what would fill the vacuum should they go too “soft” (for want of a better word!).

Secondly, Cleverly seems to be a bit iffy in his attitude towards the London protests: something I heard yesterday suggests that he was urging protesters to be "careful of disinformation". What, the imaginary bombs falling on imaginary residential blocks in Gaza?

I didn’t see/hear what he said, but could he have been referring to the alleged number of casualties, the alleged hospital strike, use of the word “genocide” etc.? I’ve even seen a tweet claiming the terror attack on the 7th of October was a false flag… There is definite disinformation out there.

Thirdly the Mail and Express headlines this morning are pretty outrageous, appearing to infer that all protesters are supporters of terrorism, when it was only a very small number of people who were arrested. Just helps confirm my view that the Express, in particular, is a far-right paper (see for example previous headlines demonising and dehumanising all EU immigrants to the UK). Responsible retailers should boycott these two papers.

Even as a “righty” I don’t read either publication as they’re total trash. Much like most of the mainstream media to be fair!

And then Netanyahu was on the radio yesterday, seeming, from my interpretation, to display a lack of urgency about getting the hostages released. To my mind, and I may be misinterpreting what he said, he seemed to be inferring that wiping Hamas out was more important than entering talks to get the hostages released.

I’ve mixed feelings on this.

He may know more than he’s letting on, either in regard to negotiations or the “status” of the hostages (I can’t think of a more pleasant way to put it). On the other hand it may be a case of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”, which is of course the UK’s official position.

He could gain political capital out of securing their release, so I’m inclined to think he does care, even if only for that reason.

Whatever, Netanyahu has scored a spectacular own goal. His international reputation has gone completely down the plughole in the past two weeks: he's always been a strident right-winger but this exaggerated, over-the-top response has, IMV, made him look very, very bad indeed. A militaristic hawk making a bad situation many, many times worse and causing repercussions which I suspect we will all feel for years to come.

As I’ve said previously, I’m not convinced that any good will come out of this, but I can understand why he’s doing it. Whether the response is “exaggerated” and “over-the-top” I’m not sure; the optics are terrible but the Israelis have decided “never again” and clearly see this as the way to achieve that.

I really do sympathise with innocent Palestinians in Gaza, it’s a humanitarian disaster, but they’re as much victims of Hamas (who surely knew what the response would be) as they are Israel. In fact, what’s quite apparent is that no one cares about these people, no one who can help them anyway, which is tragic.

The one western power displaying some kind of measured, unbiased attitude right now appears to be France, which is often the case in Middle Eastern situations. I haven't always agreed with Macron in the past but right now he is, relatively speaking, the voice of sanity.

It’s difficult to disagree with Macron on this occasion, certainly in regard to allowing humanitarian access and protecting civilians.

 

[GS250]

It does appear that Israel is now losing the moral high ground that it appeared to have a few weeks ago. Yes I can understand the anger behind their actions but it seems they've gone too far now. Simply reverting to the 'holocaust' type argument to justify their reaction is starting to wear pretty thin now.

Exactly the same when other 'communities' use a historic grievance to justify a crime spree. All they actually do is reinforce the views that others have of them.

 

[uglymonkey]

I think they just want to start at one end of Gaza and level it to rubble until they reach the Egypt border, regardless of the humanitarian cost. They wont stop until it's completely flat.