2023 Israel - Hamas war

[Mogster]

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.

And Hamas will be severely militarily degraded in the process. The question is will Iran allow that to happen?

 

[uglymonkey]

What could Iran do about it? A direct strike? Move Hamas to West Bank?

 

[Mogster]

What could Iran do about it? A direct strike? Move Hamas to West Bank?

The obvious thing would be to put pressure on the IDF by opening new fronts via Iran’s other proxies like Hezbollah in the North and the Iranian supported Syrian groups. Hezbollah are supposed to be far better equipped than Hamas with huge stocks of rockets and well trained troops. There’s also the Houthis in Yemen, another of Iran’s proxies and probably the best equipped of Iran’s puppets, they have more modern kit that they’ve been using against Saudi proxies. The Houthis have already attempted to fire cruise missiles at Israel, they were shot down by a USN warship the other day. The Houthis also have modern anti ship missiles, and access to the straights of Hormuz…

Its hard to imagine than Iran would want a direct conflict with Israel but with Hamas degraded and the likelihood of the IDF turning on Hezbollah next they could be looking at losing a lot of regional influence. Iran do have plenty of proper ballistic missiles that could be used to strike Israeli cities. Unfortunately Iran getting involved directly could trigger a much wider Arab conflict.

 

[uglymonkey]

And the US.

 

[brad465]

Today we've had two different MPs face some form of disciplinary action linked to views in this conflict: Paul Bristow has been sacked as a government aide for breaking the Government position by asking for a ceasefire, and Labour MP Andy McDonald has had the whip removed in relation to a weekend speech he made.

Paul Bristow: Ministerial aide sacked after call for Israel-Gaza ceasefire

Paul Bristow had expressed support for "a permanent ceasefire" in Gaza, which is not government policy.

www.bbc.co.uk

A ministerial aide has been sacked from his government role after calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Downing Street said Paul Bristow had made comments which "were not consistent with the principles of collective responsibility".
In a letter to the prime minister last week, Mr Bristow said "a permanent ceasefire" would save lives and allow aid to reach those who needed it most.
The government supports "humanitarian pauses" but not a full ceasefire.
During Prime Minister's Questions last week, Rishi Sunak said "specific pauses" would allow more aid into Gaza but he rejected calls to back a ceasefire, stressing that Israel had a right to defend itself.
Mr Bristow, who is the Conservative MP for Peterborough, was a Parliamentary Private Secretary - the lowest rung of the ministerial ladder - to Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
After being sacked by Mr Sunak, he told the BBC: "I completely understand the PM's decision. And it is with regret I leave a job I enjoyed. "But I can now talk openly about an issue so many of my constituents care deeply about.
"I believe I can do this better from the backbenches rather than as part of the government payroll."
A Downing Street spokesman said: "Paul Bristow has been asked to leave his post in government following comments that were not consistent with the principles of collective responsibility."
Collective responsibility is the convention that all members of the government must publicly support government policy, even if they personally disagree with it.

Keir Starmer suspends senior Labour MP Andy McDonald over ‘river to the sea’ speech

The MP said his remarks had been 'misrepresented' and were a plea 'for all peoples in the region to live in freedom'

inews.co.uk

A senior Labour MP has been suspended from the parliamentary party after making comments described as “deeply offensive” at a pro-Palestine rally, i understands.

Andy McDonald was initially not expected to face disciplinary action for using the controversial slogan “from the river to the sea” to express backing for Palestine at the weekend’s march.

But following fast-paced internal discussions on Monday afternoon, he has had the party whip suspended.

He said: “We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty. Free, free Palestine!”

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Foot was no pacifist, just anti nuclear weapons.

He was however an agent of interest to the KGB.

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

Manu is thinking solely about the reaction of the many muslims in France!

 

[nw1]

Today we've had two different MPs face some form of disciplinary action linked to views in this conflict: Paul Bristow has been sacked as a government aide for breaking the Government position by asking for a ceasefire, and Labour MP Andy McDonald has had the whip removed in relation to a weekend speech he made.

Paul Bristow: Ministerial aide sacked after call for Israel-Gaza ceasefire

Paul Bristow had expressed support for "a permanent ceasefire" in Gaza, which is not government policy.

www.bbc.co.uk

Keir Starmer suspends senior Labour MP Andy McDonald over ‘river to the sea’ speech

The MP said his remarks had been 'misrepresented' and were a plea 'for all peoples in the region to live in freedom'

inews.co.uk

That's disgusting, in both cases.

Shame on both the Government and the Labour leadership for their authoritarianism and their censorship of free speech. You're not allowed to criticise Netanyahu's actions if you're a politician, it seems. You're not allowed to demonstrate any kind of sympathy towards Palestinians, it seems.

 

[renegademaster]

That's disgusting, in both cases.

Shame on both the Government and the Labour leadership for their authoritarianism and their censorship of free speech. You're not allowed to criticise Netanyahu's actions if you're a politician, it seems. You're not allowed to demonstrate any kind of sympathy towards Palestinians, it seems.

A political party deciding it's members have to hold certain political positions isn't authoritarianism or violating free speech. Was Bridgen being kicked out the same?

 

[nw1]

A political party deciding it's members have to hold certain political positions isn't authoritarianism or violating free speech. Was Bridgen being kicked out the same?

There is nothing fundamentally anti-Conservative about what Bristow said. There is nothing fundamentally anti-Labour about what McDonald said.

Why should Bristow be dismissed from government and McDonald kicked out of Labour for what they said? Neither said anything which most people would regard as offensive. If there was a message common to both, it was pro-peace. I don't know what's wrong with that.

Perhaps the likes of Sunak and Starmer need to listen to the opinions of people like Bristow and McDonald and take them on board. They may have a point.

Regarding Bridgen there was, most would agree, something genuinely and actually offensive about what he said - unlike either of the two cases under discussion.

 

[JamesT]

There is nothing fundamentally anti-Conservative about what Bristow said. There is nothing fundamentally anti-Labour about what McDonald said.

Why should Bristow be dismissed from government and McDonald kicked out of Labour for what they said? Neither said anything which most people would regard as offensive. If there was a message common to both, it was pro-peace. I don't know what's wrong with that.

Perhaps the likes of Sunak and Starmer need to listen to the opinions of people like Bristow and McDonald and take them on board. They may have a point.

Regarding Bridgen there was, most would agree, something genuinely and actually offensive about what he said - unlike either of the two cases under discussion.

Bristow is considerably easier, it’s not being anti-Conservative, it’s the principle of collective responsibility that being part of government involves. Positions are agreed privately and then ministers are expected to publicly stick to them or resign. He’s not been kicked out of the party.

Calling for peace is fine, but surely that’s possible without using the phrase “from the river to the sea”?

Given how indecisive both leaders have been previously and eager to find compromise positions, it’s striking that both have decided that supporting Israel is the correct position.

 

[yorkie]

Keir Starmer suspends senior Labour MP Andy McDonald over ‘river to the sea’ speech

The MP said his remarks had been 'misrepresented' and were a plea 'for all peoples in the region to live in freedom'

inews.co.uk

My vote is effectively meaningless anyway but it looks like I may not be willing to vote for Labour after all, as I can't see anything wrong with what Andy McDonald actually said.

If Starmer doesn'g get a grip soon, I think Labour are going to lose a fair bit of support. That said, anyone deterred from voting Labour as a result of the events in Israel/Gaza is going to be desperate to get rid of the Tories, so it's probably not really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I am very disappointed in Starmer over this crisis; I was also very disappointed in him over Covid. But the Tories pro-Israel stance is absolutely disgusting and some of the stuff they are coming out with is highly provocative.

Bristow is considerably easier, it’s not being anti-Conservative, it’s the principle of collective responsibility that being part of government involves. Positions are agreed privately and then ministers are expected to publicly stick to them or resign. He’s not been kicked out of the party.

Calling for peace is fine, but surely that’s possible without using the phrase “from the river to the sea”?

Given how indecisive

He said:

"We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty. Free, free Palestine!”

I see nothing wrong with that.

both leaders have been previously and eager to find compromise positions, it’s striking that both have decided that supporting Israel is the correct position.

I fear Starmer's aim is to win Tory voters above all else; he knows that if he upsets the left, the left may not vote for Labour but what is most important for him is that they wont vote Tory.

It's a very sad state of affairs if so, as I don't see how public opinion is supportive of Israel's actions. Far from it, in fact.

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...

Unfortunately the far-right Israeli Government lacks the intelligence to realise this.

The idea that their current actions will help is utterly absurd; they are completely and utterly deluded.

 

[brad465]

Given how indecisive both leaders have been previously and eager to find compromise positions, it’s striking that both have decided that supporting Israel is the correct position.

My vote is effectively meaningless anyway but it looks like I may not be willing to vote for Labour after all, as I can't see anything wrong with what Andy McDonald actually said.

If Starmer doesn'g get a grip soon, I think Labour are going to lose a fair bit of support. That said, anyone deterred from voting Labour as a result of the events in Israel/Gaza is going to be desperate to get rid of the Tories, so it's probably not really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I am very disappointed in Starmer over this crisis; I was also very disappointed in him over Covid. But the Tories pro-Israel stance is absolutely disgusting and some of the stuff they are coming out with is highly provocative.


He said:

I see nothing wrong with that.

I fear Starmer's aim is to win Tory voters above all else; he knows that if he upsets the left, the left may not vote for Labour but what is most important for him is that they wont vote Tory.

It's a very sad state of affairs if so, as I don't see how public opinion is supportive of Israel's actions. Far from it, in fact.


Unfortunately the far-right Israeli Government lacks the intelligence to realise this.

The idea that their current actions will help is utterly absurd; they are completely and utterly deluded.

Somehow the Israeli state and most of the world's mass media have managed to gaslight the idea that any criticism of their actions is anti-Semitic, even if the criticism is for the regime only and their behaviour that were it any other country's regime doing it would get proper criticism, and also where Hamas, who are genuinely anti-Semitic, get criticism too. The UN Secretary found this out when criticising both Hamas and the Israeli regime's past behaviour led to the latter flipping their lid.

My guess is this fear of being labelled anti-Semitic is leading our politicians to adopt no concrete/cowardly positions - even if what they should say/do is not anti-Semitic, if the media claim they are being so, perception is what takes over. Starmer in particular leads a party recently dogged by this very issue, so in that sense I'm not surprise he's behaved the way he has so far. How we as a society overcome all of this I don't know.

 

[Yew]

He was however an agent of interest to the KGB.

Has there been a time when prominent British politicians weren't of interest to the KGB whilst it existed?

 

[davews]

I have kept out of this discussion up to now but reading the above comments has cheered me up. From the government and the media it would seem if you don't support Israel and its actions and press for peace you are automatically anti-semitic. I have long been concerned about Israel and its politics, and also never come to grips with middle east politics but this current action has upset me enormously. It seems now peace is out of the window and it is all about 'an eye for an eye' and total destruction of both sides whatever it costs. I despair. The dismissal of two politicians yesterday for what they said is disgusting.

 

[DustyBin]

I have kept out of this discussion up to now but reading the above comments has cheered me up. From the government and the media it would seem if you don't support Israel and its actions and press for peace you are automatically anti-semitic. I have long been concerned about Israel and its politics, and also never come to grips with middle east politics but this current action has upset me enormously. It seems now peace is out of the window and it is all about 'an eye for an eye' and total destruction of both sides whatever it costs. I despair. The dismissal of two politicians yesterday for what they said is disgusting.

The casual accusations of anti-semitism need to stop, I agree. It’s a lazy way to shut down debate and I often criticise (some on) the left for the same thing. (There are seemingly plenty of anti-semites around, however).

I disagree with you in regard to this now being about “an eye for an eye” as it isn’t; it’s about Israel’s long term security. Whether they’ll achieve it is another matter entirely (I have my doubts) but there’s a clear military objective.

I don’t believe Paul Bristow (who was a ministerial aide) or Andy McDonald deserved to be sacked, although in the case of the latter it was absolutely stupid to use that terminology under the circumstances.

 

[nw1]

Bristow is considerably easier, it’s not being anti-Conservative, it’s the principle of collective responsibility that being part of government involves. Positions are agreed privately and then ministers are expected to publicly stick to them or resign. He’s not been kicked out of the party.

Calling for peace is fine, but surely that’s possible without using the phrase “from the river to the sea”?

The mistake is people who seem to think that "from the river to the sea" automatically means abolishing the state of Israel and is an antisemitic phrase. It does not and is not. Note how McDonald included Israelis in the list of people he wished peace on. He has been thrown out of Labour for thinking independently, and that sucks.

(Of course, I will still tactically vote for Labour in the next election but only because I detest the Sunak government and all it stands for with a passion. I'm not impressed with Starmer's stance on Gaza, or, for that matter, the B-word).

Given how indecisive both leaders have been previously and eager to find compromise positions, it’s striking that both have decided that supporting Israel is the correct position.

Supporting Netanyahu, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of Israelis who disagree with his action, not least because it will increase the risk of terrorism towards themselves.

What is also striking is how the UK is in the minority when it comes to the world as a whole. The majority of the world voted for a ceasefire, including countries such as France, Spain and New Zealand. It's the UK and other countries which abstained which are in the minority.

 

[DC1989]

The river to the sea speech was a the loudest dog whistle I've heard for a long time. I suppose he thought he was being clever and can now argue plausible deniability

 

[nw1]

My vote is effectively meaningless anyway but it looks like I may not be willing to vote for Labour after all, as I can't see anything wrong with what Andy McDonald actually said.

If Starmer doesn'g get a grip soon, I think Labour are going to lose a fair bit of support. That said, anyone deterred from voting Labour as a result of the events in Israel/Gaza is going to be desperate to get rid of the Tories, so it's probably not really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I agree: sadly I think Starmer's stance is that he has to be right-wing on various issues (the Gaza situation, but also Brexit, in which he is being way too "Brexity" for my liking). Reason is, of course, that he has to attract right-wing voters to be sure of winning. The left, liberals and remainers will vote for him anyway, because they can't stand the Sunak government.

That said there is the risk that "independent small-c conservatives" who sympathise with Palestine might be put off. Such people do exist, I know one or two. Starmer should be careful not to lose their vote - though as Sunak is equally anti-ceasefire, I suspect they wouldn't vote for him either.

I am very disappointed in Starmer over this crisis; I was also very disappointed in him over Covid. But the Tories pro-Israel stance is absolutely disgusting and some of the stuff they are coming out with is highly provocative.

I just hope he takes a more liberal-left position when in power, and all this is just a game to win over right-wing voters in the coming election, which I guess he needs to do to be sure of winning.

I do expect a significant growth in radical-left votes in safe Labour seats; many people will likely want to vote radical-left to register their dissatisfaction where this does not risk letting the Tory in.

The river to the sea speech was a the loudest dog whistle I've heard for a long time. I suppose he thought he was being clever and can now argue plausible deniability

Dog whistle? Arguing for peace? I don't think so.
It's this sort of comment which is shutting down free debate on this issue.

 

[Cdd89]

Dog whistle? Arguing for peace? I don't think so.

It's this sort of comment which is shutting down free debate on this issue.

I agree that he said nothing wrong, taken without context. However, why do we suppose he used that specific phrase? At best, it adds nothing but fluff; wouldn’t his call for peace have been just as valid without it?

It’s either utter idiocy, or dog whistling (I wouldn’t like to say which). I am not a huge fan of Starmer, but I don’t think he had a choice here; had it been unaddressed, further MPs would have “pushed the boundary”.

 

[nw1]

I agree that he said nothing wrong, taken without context. However, why do we suppose he used that specific phrase? At best, it adds nothing but fluff; wouldn’t his call for peace have been just as valid without it?

It’s either utter idiocy, or dog whistling (I wouldn’t like to say which). I am not a huge fan of Starmer, but I don’t think he had a choice here; had it been unaddressed, further MPs would have “pushed the boundary”.

Maybe he was trying to prove a point, that one should be allowed to say certain phrases without incorrect meaning being ascribed to them.

 

[DustyBin]

I agree that he said nothing wrong, taken without context. However, why do we suppose he used that specific phrase? At best, it adds nothing but fluff; wouldn’t his call for peace have been just as valid without it?

It’s either utter idiocy, or dog whistling (I wouldn’t like to say which). I am not a huge fan of Starmer, but I don’t think he had a choice here; had it been unaddressed, further MPs would have “pushed the boundary”.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and put it down to stupidity (unless someone can point to a history of anti-semitic comments/behaviour?). It absolutely was stupid though at best; there are any number of ways to make the point he was making without using those words, which a are synonymous with antisemitism.

Maybe he was trying to prove a point, that one should be allowed to say certain phrases without incorrect meaning being ascribed to them.

In this context though, seriously? It was completely inappropriate, either by accident or design.

 

[yorkie]

People who are keen to deflect from the atrocities committed by Israel are trying to make certain words appear to be "antisemetic"; it's pathetic.

Those people are keen to take focus away from the fact that there are double standards at play; the lives of some people appear to be valued exponentially higher than the value of other people.

There was nothing wrong with what was actually said.

How would these people like it if their livelihoods were destroyed, if their homeland was occupied and oppressed and they were denied the right to a truly independent state?

It's a ridiculous argument, designed to deflect from the disgusting behaviour of Israel and the ludicrous amount of support this rogue state gets.

 

[uglymonkey]

Indeed if the British decided to straffe and rocket catholic housing estates in Belfast everytime the IRA set a bomb off, there would be hell to pay.- Double standards.

 

[renegademaster]

Indeed if the British decided to straffe and rocket catholic housing estates in Belfast everytime the IRA set a bomb off, there would be hell to pay.- Double standards.

IRA where *much* tamer than Hamas. One most of the time tried to minimize civilian casualties while the other makes it their prime objective, which is Israel takes as the reason to be looser with the rules of engagement than the relative kiddy gloves we treated the IRA with

 

[nw1]

In this context though, seriously? It was completely inappropriate, either by accident or design.

If you believe "from the river to the sea", in all contexts related to this conflict, automatically implies anti-Semitism.

 

[DustyBin]

People who are keen to deflect from the atrocities committed by Israel are trying to make certain words appear to be "antisemetic"; it's pathetic.

As a politician, Andy McDonald should have known better than to use those words. As per my previous two posts, I'm not accusing him of antisemitism, but he was asking for trouble. It was a stupid thing to say.

Those people are keen to take focus away from the fact that there are double standards at play; the lives of some people appear to be valued exponentially higher than the value of other people.

I agree that there's little regard being shown for the lives of ordinary Palestinians. The Israelis don't care about them, Hamas don't care about them, and neighbouring countries don't care about them. They're victims of history, geography and circumstance, and it's genuinely tragic.

As distasteful as it is however, Israel's response to the attack on the 7th of October was completely foreseeable, and inevitable. Hamas put their own people in harms way by starting a war and embedding themselves within the civilian population, and made it easy for the likes of the US and UK to call them "collateral". I'm not OK with this, but it was always going to happen.

There was nothing wrong with what was actually said.

See above; there was under the circumstances (although again I'm happy to call it careless/stupid rather than antisemitic).

How would these people like it if their livelihoods were destroyed, if their homeland was occupied and oppressed and they were denied the right to a truly independent state?

The problem is that the Israelis also see this as an existential fight, not without justification. Were it not for Israel's military strength, it's people would very likely have found themselves in the position in which the Palestinians find themselves, or worse.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right and the Netanyahu government has done everything it can to inflame the situation and is very much part of the problem. The latest "time for war" rhetoric is particularly disturbing.

It's a ridiculous argument, designed to deflect from the disgusting behaviour of Israel and the ludicrous amount of support this rogue state gets.

Again, I agree that labelling any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic is ridiculous. No country should be above scrutiny, especially one embroiled in such a long running and messy conflict that has resulted in many thousands of civilian deaths. Then of course there's the illegal settlements etc. on the West Bank.

In the here and now though, how should they deal with Hamas? The attack on the 7th of October was beyond barbaric, it was full on ISIS level savagery committed (largely) against innocent civilians. They simply can't let it happen again, which means destroying Hamas. It's a complete mess, to which there's no obvious (or even remotely viable at this stage) solution.

Indeed if the British decided to straffe and rocket catholic housing estates in Belfast everytime the IRA set a bomb off, there would be hell to pay.- Double standards.

We discussed why this isn't remotely analogous a page or two back.

If you believe "from the river to the sea", in all contexts related to this conflict, automatically implies anti-Semitism.

The reality is that it's synonymous with antisemitism, rightly or wrongly. It was a poor choice of expression.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The reality is that it's synonymous with antisemitism, rightly or wrongly. It was a poor choice of expression.

I don't see anything antisemitic per se in those words. By themselves, they are simply describing an area of land. Just because a particularly unpleasant group has chosen to use them, it doesn't mean people who have different, more peaceful, intentions, shouldn't be able to use the same words, if the raw meaning of those words is appropriate. To my mind, if we go down the road of saying that, Hamas has used that phrase therefore no-one else can use it, then we're effectively handing control of that piece of language to Hamas - which I don't think we want to do.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't see anything antisemitic per se in those words. By themselves, they are simply describing an area of land. Just because a particularly unpleasant group has chosen to use them, it doesn't mean people who have different, more peaceful, intentions, shouldn't be able to use the same words, if the raw meaning of those words is appropriate. To my mind, if we go down the road of saying that, Hamas has used that phrase therefore no-one else can use it, then we're effectively handing control of that piece of language to Hamas - which I don't think we want to do.

I’d actually agree with your final sentence, but it’s not just Hamas that use them. Those words are synonymous with antisemitism and are used by antisemites of all denominations, from football yobs to genocidal Islamist extremists.

Again (and I realise I’m repeating myself here), I’m not accusing Andy McDonald of antisemitism and I don’t believe he deserved to be suspended. It was stupid to use those words though, regardless of his intentions.

 

[yorkie]

As a politician, Andy McDonald should have known better than to use those words. As per my previous two posts, I'm not accusing him of antisemitism, but he was asking for trouble. It was a stupid thing to say.

My view remains as above; if you read what was actually said, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. One side is very keen to say that anyone who uses particular words as part of a sentence or phrase means a particular thing, in order to deflect from the atrocities committed by Israel. We will have to agree to disagree.

I agree that there's little regard being shown for the lives of ordinary Palestinians. The Israelis don't care about them, Hamas don't care about them, and neighbouring countries don't care about them. They're victims of history, geography and circumstance, and it's genuinely tragic.

As distasteful as it is however, Israel's response to the attack on the 7th of October was completely foreseeable, and inevitable. Hamas put their own people in harms way by starting a war and embedding themselves within the civilian population, and made it easy for the likes of the US and UK to call them "collateral". I'm not OK with this, but it was always going to happen.

I don't really get your point; the issue here is that Israel is behaving appallingly and this just comes across as an attempt to deflect from that, which I don't get. We should not accept their behaviour as in any way "inevitable".

It's also foreseeable that antisemetism would rise as a result of Israel's actions, and that isn't OK either.

See above; there was under the circumstances (although again I'm happy to call it careless/stupid rather than antisemitic).

See above; I don't agree that what was actually said is objectionable.

The problem is that the Israelis also see this as an existential fight, not without justification. Were it not for Israel's military strength, it's people would very likely have found themselves in the position in which the Palestinians find themselves, or worse.

This just sounds like excuses to justify Israel's inappropriate actions.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right and the Netanyahu government has done everything it can to inflame the situation and is very much part of the problem. The latest "time for war" rhetoric is particularly disturbing.

I will agree with you on this part.

Again, I agree that labelling any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic is ridiculous. No country should be above scrutiny, especially one embroiled in such a long running and messy conflict that has resulted in many thousands of civilian deaths. Then of course there's the illegal settlements etc. on the West Bank.

Again, agreed.

In the here and now though, how should they deal with Hamas? The attack on the 7th of October was beyond barbaric, it was full on ISIS level savagery committed (largely) against innocent civilians. They simply can't let it happen again, which means destroying Hamas. It's a complete mess, to which there's no obvious (or even remotely viable at this stage) solution.

That there is no obvious solution is no excuse for their actions; furthermore, the belief that Hamas can be "destroyed" is ridiculous.

We discussed why this isn't remotely analogous a page or two back.

Even if it's not 'analogous', the point stands that bombing innocent people is not an acceptable response; there is no need to debate equivalence (or lack of).

The reality is that it's synonymous with antisemitism, rightly or wrongly. It was a poor choice of expression.

I don't agree; see @DynamicSpirit's post above. I'd never heard of it before a few weeks ago, but you need to look at what was actually said, rather than falsely claim that anyone who says any particular words can be automatically be deemed to have a particular belief (especially when the context of what they said is completely at odds with this claimed meaning).

Strikes on south Gaza: BBC verifies attacks in areas of ‘safety’

The BBC has analysed four strikes in south Gaza, where civilians were told to evacuate to.

www.bbc.co.uk

Since the Israeli military issued the first of several instructions for civilians to evacuate north Gaza, hundreds of thousands of Gazans have moved to the south of the strip. But the south has continued to come under Israeli bombardment, leading the UN and other aid organisations to warn that nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians.

To better understand the risk to civilians in south Gaza, BBC Verify has identified and analysed four specific instances of strikes in that region. We also looked at some of the warnings and evacuation instructions that were issued to Gazan civilians, including some advising them to move to certain areas in the south....

I would go to one of the safe zones marked out by the IDF and admittedly have to trust the enemy to keep me alive.

Could you look at the above article and reconsider your views?

Alternatively, if you've changed your mind, I'd absolutely respect anyone who admits they were wrong to support the far-right Israeli regime.

Is there anyone who sees reports, such as the one below, of the effects on civilians, and still thinks Israel is acting lawfully, proportionally, appropriately, and honourably...?

Moment injured Gaza girl sees baby sister is alive

Five-year-old Joury and 18-month-old Julia reunite in hospital after a blast in southern Gaza.

www.bbc.co.uk

...The girls were treated for head injuries and were left scared and traumatised, their uncle added. They later left the hospital with their family...

 

[Busaholic]

He was however an agent of interest to the KGB.

According to Oleg Gordievsky, who claimed he had seen such information when he was working for the KGB in London. The Sunday Times serialised Gordievsky's autobiography in 1995, and Foot later sued them for libel and won substantial damages. Long prior to that stories had been planted in the press imputing that Harold Wilson, Labour P,M, in the late 1960s and mid 1970s, was a Soviet spy. This 'information' came from a Russian defector, just like Gordievsky. A case of telling MI5.MI6/the CIA what they wanted to hear?