Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (31)
Hamas is history, even though it’s still kicking. As Ikram Nur, from the Azeri news site Haqqin.az, wittily noted: “Hamas today found itself in a situation of a man who has successfully overwhelmed Mike Tyson by an unexpected blow. If this man can run fast and the door is fortuitously open – he is alright. However, if he is locked up with Mike Tyson in the same room and there’s nowhere to run – commiserations are in order.”
The degree of Israeli fury and anger is impossible to overestimate. For the first time since the Yom Kippur War, an Alef40 order has been given. This means that the Israeli military must be guided by military considerations only, without asking the political leadership for permission.
After declaring war on Hamas, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu told Gaza inhabitants “Leave while you can, because we will act everywhere with full might”. He also promised: “We will kill everyone who harms Israeli hostages”, and declared that Hamas would pay an unprecedented price, including the destruction of anything connected with Hamas until its complete annihilation.
In other words, Bibi follows an old Biblical rule: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Before critics jump up and down, telling me how unforgivably barbaric this rule is – let me say that this rule is precisely the opposite of being barbaric and simply means that the punishment must fit the crime. In other words – you cannot demand a perpetrator’s eye if you have lost a tooth as a result of his actions. In Hamas’s case it means complete extirpation. My guess – the Jewish state will deliver on this promise – fast and harsh.
The Hamas atrocity is already called Israel’s 9/11. Biden’s administration seems to share this view, warning “third parties” not to interfere with Israel’s response. This warning is directed to Hizballah and its patron, Iran. The nearby Sixth Fleet fills this warning with substance. A kind word and a pistol are more convincing than the kind word on its own.
I would not exclude the possibility of a combined Israeli-American attack on the Iranian proxy, perhaps even on the terror-sponsoring state itself? That would certainly strengthen the attachment of the Gulf States to the US and make rapprochement with Israel easier. These tiny but strategically important entities floating on their seas of oil and gas-filled sand patches are terrified of Iran, its fanatical leaders and their messianic phantasms.
The weekend’s barbaric attack crystallised many countries’ positions. Curiously, our leftist Penny Wong has called on both parties “to show restraint”. Israeli restraint towards murderers and kidnappers? Restraint by the people being murdered? This adds to Labor’s insult of calling the West Bank “occupied” instead of “disputed”.
This time there will be no negotiations. You do not negotiate with your would-be killer. This time there will be no restraint. You do not accord civilised restraint to a murderer and kidnapper bent on killing you and your family, kidnapping and raping your women, destroying your life and the lives of those you love. Israel, regardless of what the UN says, will do what it must. When, not if, Israel’s military destroys Hamas, many, if not most, of their ‘Arab brothers’, especially Persian Gulf monarchies, will sigh with relief.
Cui bono? The age-old question – who benefits? Definitely not Hamas. Its leaders, terror merchants, homophobes, anti-Semites and misogynists are not idiots. They know they have no chance of winning against Israel’s army. So, why did they attack? Hamas leaders know that, by this assault, they give a potent weapon to Israeli negotiators during the Israel-Saudi Arabian talks on mutual recognition. All Israelis have to do in response to overtures by the Saudis about ‘Palestinian interests is to say – “Whose interests? Terrorists, murderers and kidnappers?” CFS — compassion fatigue syndrome — is well and truly established in the Arab world.
Does Iran benefit? It depends on what one regards as a benefit. If inflicting harm on Israel could be regarded in that light – then, certainly, Iran gained from the Hamas attack. However, the simple logic dictates that if Iranians were behind the Hamas attack, they would have activated Hezbollah in Lebanon to coincide with assault in the south. Perhaps they still will. But as I see it right now, while Iranians might have contributed to the preparation of the assault and supplied hardware, their main client remains Hezbollah. There appears to be some demarcation between the spheres of terrorist support: Teheran looks after Hizballah, Moscow cultivates Hamas. “Iran is a major player but we can’t yet say if it was involved in the planning or training,” said Admiral Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces.
Another possibility – the Russian Federation. Hamas attacked Israel on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, on the eve of this year’s Simchat Torah (celebration of receiving the Torah from the Almighty) and on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. That’s a lot of coincidences. Middle East ‘diplomacy’ is rich in such symbolism. Hamas is a long-term financial client of Russia and is recognised there as an official representative of the ‘Palestinian people’. Disturbingly, Hamas’ modus operandi, attacks spreading terror by small armed groups is resembling the tactics of the Russian Army in Ukraine. The history of Russian-Hamas links, including personal relationships, financing of terror activities, fighters training, weapons supply etc. goes back to Soviet Union times.
According to the Washington Post, “In recent years, Russia’s contact with Hamas has become more frequent. Since 2020, Lavrov has received senior Hamas figures — including the leader of the group, Ismail Haniyeh — at least five times in Moscow, with the most recent visit taking place in March.”
There is evidence of close ties Moscow has developed with the Taliban whose representatives, just like Hamas envoys, recently visited Moscow. There’s even a report of the visitings Talibs losing credit cards in a Moscow supermarket. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace puts it this way:
Symbolically, Russia last year issued accreditation to a Taliban official to represent Afghanistan diplomatically in Russia. Only a handful of other states in the world have taken such a step. Considering its economic isolation from the West, Moscow does not have many options when it comes to building trade ties.
Why would Russia be involved? Don’t they have enough problems with the Ukrainians? Why would they want another enemy? Some reasons.
1/ The Russians did not expect such strong opposition from the Ukrainians.
2/ The Russians did not expect such a united and powerful Western response to their attack on Ukraine.
3/ By directing Hamas to attack Israel, the Russians counted on splitting US help between Israel and Ukraine. America is rich, but its resources are not inexhaustible.
4/ By influencing a reduction of American help, the Russians could ease their soldiers’ ordeal under the devastating effectiveness of Western weapons.
5/ By opening a new focus of the world’s attention, the Russians would benefit from diverting the spotlight from their own inhumanities in Ukraine.
What are the possible consequences of the Hamas attack?
1/ The death of Hamas as a functioning organisation and destruction of their leaders and activists. Apparently, malice and hatred are bad advisors in foreign policy.
2/ An Israeli ground operation which will be costly and bloody. Success will require re-occupation of whatever is left of Gaza. Its Arab population will either emigrate or become Israel’s residents, initially without voting rights.
3/ A resolution for the Israeli split over intended judicial reform as more pressing matters — life or death — take precedence.
4/ The emergence of a stronger Israel is attractive to the Arab world as a counterbalance to the Iran’s threat.
5/ A strong message to terror merchants – “Enough is enough!”
6/ A resolution of the Israeli split over intended judicial reform. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be clear now: bitter division in a democracy nation weakens that nation and makes the bad guys contemplate the unthinkable. This is an axiom Australians and our allies should accept and step back from virtue signalling, moral posturing and political correctness.
7/ War is spreading, inching closer to becoming global. This spread is a direct consequence of the Russian Foreign policies in conjunction with other terrorist states – Iran and North Korea. Plain to see, this requires a resolute response.
The footage from israel is stomach-turning, yet good may come out of it if Netanyahu fulfils his promise to destroy Hamas completely and utterly. And, at the end of the day, there his invitation for the West to recognise self-interest and unite against terror.
Michael, here in Australia I venture that the vast majority of my peaceful, quiet and laid back countrymen have Israel’s back. Like Israel, we are full to the gunnels with Compassion Fatigue Syndrome also, what with the loud, continuous and shrill screaming of the dispossessed and the side-lined and the invasion and the cursing against white privilege and the hate and the lies and the half-truths, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…and on ad infinitum. We vote tomorrow (Saturday 14th October) on our Referendum to give the indigenous a voice to Parliament. It seems that the screaming will come to an end in shock and dismay when they realise that their game has been overplayed. It will be an overwhelming NO, go away. So know this Michael: We in Australia are watching and quietly cheering as the Israeli Army go about the business of wiping the stain of Hamas off the map. Would that I could be there to help.
You might be surprised at how many Australians, including a lot of Jews, do not support the Israeli State. It is a bit like the referendum where people assumed much and got it wrong and lost more than they expected.
Good piece Michael, and good comment Paul.
Please Mr. Harrison, do not include me in your “We in Australia”, as I am not “quietly cheering” any people being wiped off the map. People need to think what they are saying, after all, the people of Gaza voted for Hamas, so by extension, shouldn’t they all be considered a “stain” needed to be wiped off the map?
.
You have expressed your desire to be there to help in the “stain” removal process, joining the Australians whom I have heard are being called up as reservists in the IDF, but this sort of dual nationalism or dual allegiance is as destructive to the Australian way of life as the Aboriginal nationalism movement. Should the Israeli flag fly next to the Aboriginal and the T.S.I. flags in addition to the Australian flag? And what about our fellow Aussies of Arab, Muslim or Palestinian heritage, shouldn’t they be equally free to go and wipe out what they consider to be a “stain” on the map?
.
With the sort of rhetoric being expressed, will it soon apply that “those who are not with us are against us”, which would mean that any dissent is to be considered as giving support to terrorists? Where are we going with this?
.
Perhaps Britain is to blame by starting this whole thing with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the UN for partitioning Palestine in 1947? If so, then they are the ones responsible to fix up the mess they made.
.
The resonations emanating from “Bibi” for revenge and promises to destroy Hamas completely and utterly, and his general anti-Palestinian sentiments, etc., jolt my mind to remember the hate and anger of other nationalist leaders in the past, and one in particular, which I dare not mention! Nationalism is a particular problem when a nation state is dominated by one race, religion or ethnicity, and declares a mandate from some higher power or ideal, to extend its borders, by military means, onto lands it claims a historic or mythical ownership, wiping out, exiling or interning/enslaving the hapless people living there in the process.
So I can infer that you were in full and complete support of the mob which descended on the steps of the Opera House in Sydney, waving the flag of the enemy and screaming ‘death to Israel’, a screaming which echoed around the world. This inference is thus established. And make no mistake whatsoever: The collective ‘we’ I used gives no oxygen at all to people who would excuse Hamas as some type of ‘oppressed people’. ‘Pardon, my slip is showing’, in the emotional words I use, but a controlled, righteous anger is being shared around the world, in support of, not a country defending itself, but a country looking to deal justice to savage murderers. I would also infer that you do not understand the difference between the rights of policy and the rights of justice. Your defense of them disgusts me.
Mr Harrison, your inference as to who/m and what I support and defend, are without evidential foundation, and I find those particular inferences to be offensive.
.
Personally, I have endeavored to avoid media coverage of anything related to the subject matter, as the “meme” of the media is to capture people’s attention with sensationalism, so I have been minimally affected by these current events, and do not hold thoughts and feelings of hate and revenge towards anyone, nor do I support one side over the other. Henry David Thoreau wrote in the middle of the 19th century that he didn’t read newspapers, the reason being, he said, was because there was nothing new in them, just the same old reports of train-wrecks and murders!
.
Working ourselves up into a lather of emotion means that our ability to think rationally is completely overshadowed, and we then act/react from the lowest instinctual part of our brains.
.
I’ve always held that the partition of Palestine and the subsequent establishment of a state there based on a single race/religion was a tragic mistake which would perpetuate the same kind of horrors that occurred in the 1930’s and on up to 1945. The fact that I am not joining up to fight along side of you in some holy war, does not mean I am supporting your enemy. Leave me out of it please.
.
You make more sense than many want to hear. We should have left behind the Carthage era where the Romans totally destroyed that country, eliminated its people and salted the earth.
I find it difficult to see seemingly intelligent people supporting the biblical barbarism of an eye for an eye as Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Not only in Gaza but in the rest of Occupied Palestine where settlers have been told they can shoot Palestinians on sight and that is what they are doing with nearly 60 already dead, executed purely for the crimes of existing and being the wrong religion.
Israel has long worked on the principle of 10-1 where the death of one Jew requires 10 dead Palestinians and it has already passed that vengeance ratio, so perhaps it wants much more. How much is enough for the world community? 100 dead for every one Jew which would take us to 100,000.
It is all just ghastly and could not happen without the backing of so many in the global community. Poor Israel even more than Poor Palestine.
I hate to break it to you cbattle, but it wasn’t the UN Secretary General who established Israel, it was a vote in the General Assembly. Britain abstained. But Australia voted YES. By your logic, we are responsible.
That’s not exactly true either. The General Assembly recommended partition, that’s all – a recommendation. Jews established Israel. They were ready with all the necessary infrastructure by the 1930s but Britain continually found ways to block it.
Further evidence that the UN didn’t create Israel is the series of submissions by Israel to be accepted as a member of the UN that were refused, If the UIN had created Israel then UN would have no grounds to refuse membership.
14 May 1948 – Establishmnet of Israel
15 May 1948 – UN membership rejected by SC
29 Nov 1948 – Second Israel application for UN membership
17 Dec 1948 – UN membership rejected by SC
24 Feb 1949 – Third Israel application for UN membership
4 Mar 1949 – UN membership accepted by SC
7 Mar 1949 – Request for approval from SC to GA
11 May 1949 – UN membership accepted by GA
The dates show that the UN most likley expected the newly formed state to be wiped out, so no need to approval UN membership.
You’re being disingenuous. The UN Plan did call for the establishment of a Jewish State – although they did not call it “Israel”. It did, of course, call for the establishment of an Arab state. The Palestinians opposed partition, and wanted a single state solution, because at the time they were still a majority. The plan had a 3 fold partition. A Jewish state, which got about 55% of the land (although they were the minority); an international zone which included Jerusalem and Bethlehem (the Holy sites) under UN Administration, and the balance to be Arab territory. The Arabs never accepted this.
Note it was only the Holy Sites that were to be under International/UN rule: the other zones were to be independent.
Ben Gurion declared Israel established as the British Mandate was terminated. But remember that Britain handed it over to the UN because they were going to terminate the mandate, and the UN was accepted as the League of Nations’ successor.
A major problem was and remains this idea that Jews, a religion, could be compared to Arabs, a culture. This was useful because it posited a Zionist invention that followers of Judaism were a people with rights to a homeland and self-determination and dismissed Palestinians as a people in their own right, as simply Arabs, no different to Arabs anywhere. It’s a bit like saying to the British, as the Germans might have done if they had succeeded in occupying Britain: plenty of English speaking countries, go and live in one of them, all anglos together.
But the Zionists had been honing the propaganda skills for their colonisation of Palestine since the 1890’s.
Would it be accepted today that a country be partitioned in order to allow followers of one religion, Jews, to set up their own State which by its nature disenfranchised the native people who were Christians and Muslims. Yes, there were some Palestinian Jews but a very small minority even after the Zionists had been seeding it with settlers for more than half a century.
Such a plan would be summarily dismissed in this age and the reasons for its success in 1947 were many, including high levels of prejudice toward Arabs who were considered to be inferior, lots of money and power for Zionism and Jews, confusion and chaos following WWII, the terrible suffering of many Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis, support from Christian Zionists salivating at the possibility of Armageddon in the ME, which would see everyone else dead, including Jews, and they would be rapturously taken up to heaven as the world was destroyed. And the fact most people in the world knew nothing about the Middle East and cared even less.
However, while it is important to understand history it is more important to live in the here and now and right the wrongs of today.
PT: I never said that it was the UN Secretary General that partitioned Palestine, I just said the UN. And, according to Katzenjammer, it was only a recommendation by the General Assembly. It was the Zionists that declared their own state in 1948, presumably based on the recommend partition demarcations, but I am sure that the more aggressive Zionists did not accept that their capital should be Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem, or that they were in anyway obligated to observe those UN recommended demarcations.
.
The declaration of the state of Israel in 1948 was somewhat similar to the later Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965.
If the foundation of the State of Israel were tested in a court of law today it is highly unlikely it would be considered legal.
However, the legality of the State is not the issue. Its behaviour toward the native Palestinians is the issue and that is something for which Israel should be held to account.
Another eight years have passed since Moshe Dayan said the following and the brutality toward the Palestinians in Gaza has only increased along with Israel using the prisoners to test its weapons.
“Let us not cast the blame on the murderers today. Why should we deplore their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate. – Gen. Moshe Dayan
Oh come on.
.
I think establishing Israel was a terrible error, and a catastrophe for most of the Palestinian Arabs. But Britain ran Palestine as a League of Nations Mandate: and the Mandate directed them to create a Jewish “National Home”. Now this is short of an actual Jewish State, but there it is. Britain essentially threw in the towel in 1947 in response to the Jewish Terrorist campaign and the need to appease the US on the one hand, and the reluctance to further antagonise the Arab world on the other. So they handed it back to the League, or rather the UN which inherited the League’s powers, such as they were.
.
Their plan was a bit more than a mere “recommendation”. They just did nothing to implement it. And the Arabs never accepted it.
.
The point is that the UN members (most of them at the time anyway) voted to establish a Jewish State in Palestine. And did so knowing that Arab opinion was totally opposed to it. As such countries like France, Australia, USSR, Argentina etc do have a level of responsibility too.
The problem surely is that people can be killed but not ideas. Hamas exists because Palestine is occupied and still being colonised. Israel could kill every single member of Hamas but there would still be a Palestinian Resistance. That is simple logic given any understanding of history.
Israel could kill every single one of the 2.3 million people in Gaza but that would simply empower resistance in the other 4 million in Occupied Palestine, the 8 million in the Palestinian Diaspora and probably the 20% who are Israeli citizens but of Palestinian origin. The reality is Israel cannot kill enough to end resistance and if it tried it would be an international pariah including for many Jews and possibly the US, without which support it cannot survive.
This is why the occupation must end. Violence begets violence. It always has and as the Americans learned in Vietnam, a weaker force can triumph in the face of enormous power because people will fight to the death for justice and freedom.
I’m tired of the “violence begets violence” talk.
.
Israel can never have peace with Hamas. So unless they are going to just do nothing when they get attacked, there will be violence.
.
I do agree with other points though. Israel has widespread support internationally at the moment. But is likely to evaporate if a prolonged campaign in Gaza is broadcast. And it isn’t enough to kill the Hamas leaders.
Palestinian resentment is behind the support Hamas got, just as it is behind the PLO. I do not see an easy way out of this situation. Gaza is self governing after all. Most Palestinian supporters in the west seem to believe in creating a Palestinian State out of the West Bank and Gaza. I think the Hamas presence in Gaza shows this is probably not tenable. It certainly isn’t for Hamas. They do not accept the existence of Israel in any form. Their aim is the removal of Israel (and almost certainly all the Jews therein) and establishing an Islamic state.
Do you have a solution?
I agree that Michael Galek is overly optimistic. No Arab state can be seen to side with a polity that is killing huge numbers of arabs.
“Do you have a solution?”
.
All the blaming, all the explanations, can not answer this question. It is the here and now that has to be dealt with. Israel is doing just that.
.
Whilst so long as Hamas lobs rockets, kills Israelis and denies the right of Israel to exist, we will have to expect more of the same. Meanwhile, most Palestinians who would just want to live in peace, are now reaping the whirlwind of unwise decisions taken in the past.
.
It will take a cessation of Hamas attacks plus about 100 years of good will on both sides before there can be any hope of a permanent settlement.
.
If the attacks upon Israel do not cease, it is absurd to suggest that Israel should effectively eliminate itself by suddenly becoming welcoming to Palestinians.
I agree with that Rosross. It would have been better to not establish Israel, or issue the Balfour Declaration or attach the Jewish National Home directive on the Mandate. It would have been better if the French Army hadn’t collapsed in 1940, or if Singapore hadn’t fallen too. Railing about establishing Israel or the Balfour Declaration makes about as much sense as thinking whinging now could reverse the fall of France or Singapore. Things are as they are.
.
I do, however, get annoyed at the usual suspects railing on about Israel, and ignoring the fact their counterparts were the ones demanding it’s establishment 77 years ago, making excuses for Jewish terrorism and dismissing the claims of the Arabs. At the time is was the claims of “Jewish suffering” (this was immediately after the final solution) that was all that counted. Now the same sort of people, having suddenly discovered the Palestinians (apparently this happened because the Palestinians resorted to terrorism themselves), and close their eyes to what could happen to Israel if their new found concerns were implemented.
Israel was always doomed because it set itself up in a country with a majority Muslim and Christian population demanding that Jews remain in total power and a majority in the Israeli State. This is a concept which would not be tolerated in our modern age.
The Zionist and Jewish colonists also largely believed, as did many in the times, that Arabs were inferior. None of this was going to go down well in a country with an Arab population and in a region with largely Arab populations. I know there were some with noble, enlightened and non-racist ideas but they were always a minority.
An irony of course is that Israel did not really have a problem with Arabs or Palestinians because it gave citizenship to all Arab Palestinian Jews. The problem always was non-Jews and the goal was to rid Palestine of as many as they could in 1947/48 and to then make life so difficult, if not impossible, more would leave. As happened with some.
The only reason Israel has not done what other Western democracies founded in colonisation have done, and create one state shared equally by the native Palestinians and the European colonists, is because of this paranoid demand that Jews remain in power and a majority. If that demand had been tossed long ago, things might be very different.
Having made two states impossible, Israel now faces being forced to create one state shared equally by the native Palestinians and their colonisers. Unfortunately after more than 75 years of terrible violence and oppression and three generations crushed under Israeli military rule, there is no trust and much resentment. One could only hope and pray an Israeli De Klerk appears because the current situation cannot go on. Israel cannot kill or drive out 6 million in Occupied Palestine, or the 2 million who are Israeli citizens, let alone eradicate the 8 million in the Diaspora, and like South Africa, the demographic cannot be changed.
It is all a terrible tragedy and the world at large, particularly the Western world must shoulder much of the blame because none of it could have happened without their support if not encouragement.
If you are tired of violence begets violence then it is Israeli violence which must be stopped for that is the provocation and cause of Palestinian resistance and violence. This has been going on for nearly a century.
“Let us not cast the blame on the murderers today. Why should we deplore their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate. – Gen. Moshe Dayan
Has it not occurred to you that the demonisation of Hamas comes from Israel. Needs must.
You could eradicate every Hamas member tomorrow and another group would take its place. That is the nature of Resistance to occupation.
The Palestinian Resistance can never be killed because it would be impossible to eradicate all members. It is very difficult to eradicate justified resistance, enshrined in international law at the best of times. The Palestinians have a formidable enemy but the world has changed and younger generations, including Jews, often do not know or care what happened to many European Jews nearly a century ago.
In a world where there are strong movements to condemn the British for colonisations in centuries past, which were in the main, benign compared to Israel, how long does anyone think Israel can keep getting away with what it does? Every Palestinian death is a nail in the coffin of Israel and another solid load of soil for justice in Palestine.
You are actually wrong saying the Palestinians, including Hamas, do not accept the existence of Israel because they have said as much. This is another one of those claims which is fuzzy at the edges. The Palestinians have said they accept Israel exists but they will not accept its right to exist as a Jewish State. Why would they when acknowledging that would disenfranchise all Palestinian non-Jews.
So, the real truth is that Israel wants the Palestinians to say they have a right to exist as a Jewish State and that cannot be said. The Palestinians can and have said they accept that Israel exists. One could also argue that no State has the right to exist for that is simple hubris. In this ever-changing world such rights are simply not possible or reasonable.
The Israelis have demanded something the Palestinians can never give and that is why they demand it.
I did not say Palestinians in general do not accept the existence of Israel. But Hamas does not accept it, and does want to eradicate it. They’re Islamists, and for them every part of the Middle East must be Islamic. At most they’ll accept a short term truce with their enemy. They do not accept Israel as legitimate within any borders.
.
Regarding long term settlement. I don’t see one. I didn’t believe the Oslo accords would work either (and Netanyahu and Hamas helped to make sure they didn’t). There’s far less chance of this working now.
Most that people believe about Hamas comes from the Israeli propaganda machine. Israel has long sought to have the world to believe that despite having the fourth biggest military in the world it is essentially defenceless because it faces the entire Arab world. It does not. Israel also works to make people believe that Islam is a threat to them and to the entire planet. It is not. Any understanding of the lack of unity in the Islamic world and comparison of its military power up against the West makes that premise laughable.
This is a colonial war waged by Israel against Palestine and Hamas is a political party which actually helped improve the lives of Palestinians, and effectively so. Hamas is also a powerful force in the Palestinian Resistance which is hardly surprising.
I suspect most Palestinians given their suffering would love to see Israel eradicated but that would hardly make them different to other peoples crushed under military occupation watching their country still being colonised and being dispossessed.
Remember Nelson Mandela was also called a terrorist and indeed, was involved in terrorist activities. No-one disputes that the end of apartheid brought its own problems but few would say that apartheid should have been supported. Israel faces a similar quandary. Perhaps the Zionists should have left Palestine alone and taken up possible options in South America or Australia. But here is where we are at.
Demonising Hamas does not justify what Israel does as the occupying force in Palestine.
As with the September 11 attacks one must ask who look like being the ultimate beneficiaries from these unusually spectacular and well-planned acts of terrorism. We should also understand whose perspective we are being asked to favour by virtually the entire spectrum of the mainstream and right-leaning media, including Quadrant and why that might be. Not to say that things aren’t exactly as they are presented but it behoves the thinking portion of the public to consider the possibility that they might not be.
The bias toward Israel whose behaviour runs totally counter to the civilized world and the Western democracy it claims to be, does indicate powerful agendas at work.
In terms of the latest powerful and violent resistance from the Palestinians, one could argue that Israel benefits but I doubt it. The world has changed and more people know the truth of Israel’s foundation and its brutal military occupation and continued colonisation of Palestine.
When Israel wreaks far, far greater violence in revenge it loses support among Jews for Israel’s behavour totally betrays the ethics and conscience of Judaism and its followers.
And despite the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, Israel just reveals the nature of its State and fuels greater opposition to its occupation and colonisation of Palestine. The Israelis might think it helps them but it actually hurts them.
The Palestinians have numbers, time and right on their side and Israel only has increased violence to strive to maintain occupation, colonisation and apartheid. The word apartheid has now entered the lexicon of human rights groups, both Israeli and internation and begun to be used in the halls of power in the US which is even more dangerous for the Zionist entity.
The right of Israel to defend itself each time Hamas, Hezb’ollah et al attack them it is not at issue. It’s whether Israel has the right to defend itself from being attacked ad nauseam. Israel is completely justified in wiping these evil monsters off the face of the Earth, wherever they are. Raze Gaza to the ground – not one stone left upon another. Expel all ‘Palestinians’ and reincorporate the Gaza strip back into Eretz Israel. The Oslo Accord was a huge mistake, foisted upon them by the Americans. You cannot trade land for peace with a foe that doesn’t want peace. The Prophet exhorted Muslims to lie when they are weak and attack when they are strong – Hamas is simply doing what their religion tells them to do.
So your view is an occupier and coloniser has the right to defend themselves against Resistance no matter how brutal their treatment of those it oppresses?
Is that something defendable in international law or under the Geneva Conventions regulations on human rights?
I very much doubt it.
Are you a supporter of Eretz Israel which requires, to be implemented in full, all of Palestine, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan and Syria and slabs of Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran? Just how do you think such a terrible plan is likely to pan out?
A little sanity and common sense goes a long way.
Those on the Left and elsewhere calling for restraint by Israel in response to attacks by murderous Hamas terrorists are ignorant fools. They are suggesting a moral equivalence which does not exist. Compare the precision bombing by the IDF after warning Gaza civilians to leave, so called “knocking on the roof”, minimising noncombatant deaths, with Hamas forcing its citizens to remain in place in the hope of creating massive casualties and international condemnation of the IDF.
Israel uses its weapons to protect its citizens. Hamas uses its citizens to protect its weapons.
Hamas thugs are desecrating bodies, killing babies, raping women and carting others off into sexual slavery. This a struggle between civilisation and barbarism.The IDF is the most moral army in history. Hamas the most despicable. Israel has to ignore criticism from islam’s apologists, and carry on until Hamas is wiped off the face of the Earth.
Pray for Israel
Have you caught up with the CNN reporter apologising for saying Hamas beheaded babies?
How about the settler woman who said most were killed by the IDF in a massive attack against hostages and Palestinian Resistance fighters.
Quote:
An Israeli woman who survived the Hamas assault on settlements near the Gaza boundary on 7 October says Israeli civilians were “undoubtedly” killed by their own security forces.
“They eliminated everyone, including the hostages,” she told Israeli radio. “There was very, very heavy crossfire” and even tank shelling.
She also said the Palestinian fighters treated them humanely. She said this on Israeli radio and while the interview can be found and has been transcribed it is not available on the official radio site. Not surprising.
The woman, 44-year-old mother of three Yasmin Porat, said that prior to that, she and other civilians had been held by the Palestinians for several hours and treated “humanely.” She had fled the nearby “Nova” rave.
A recording of her interview, from the radio program Haboker Hazeh (“This Morning”) hosted by Aryeh Golan on state broadcaster Kan, has been circulating on social media.
Slowly truths are coming out and eating away at the propaganda which seeks to demonise the Palestinians. For the sake of Israelis even more than Palestinians perhaps, let us deal in truths and facts.
And the MSM gleefully described the 500 dead when they believed the Hamas lie that the Israelis bombed a hospital, a hospital that still stands by the way. Oh it was one of their own allies that fired a rocket that went haywire and blew up in the hospital car park. There were many who said the Israelis did it but they were either hopeful or deceptive. Maybe your female witness is also mistaken. There are many here who think the Palestinians can do no wrong like they believe our Aborigines had a perfect life until white folk showed up, Both lots are deluded and are natural allies of the socialist left that seeks to destroy us.
The bombing of the hospital is still believed to be done by Israel for a number of reasons articulated by military analysts and journalists with experience in the region.
The Palestinian Resistance/Hamas do not have the weapons which would do that sort of damage and if they did, why would they not use them on Israel.
Israel has a long history of bombing hospitals and denying it.
As to the woman settler who said the Palestinian fighters treated them humanely and most died because of IDF shooting indiscriminately, yes, she could have been mistaken. However, she said it on Israeli radio and the clip later disappeared, although it is available as transcription and one presumes, as an Israeli settler, why on earth would she say such a thing, in essence defending the Palestinians who attacked her, unless it was true?
And why would she say the IDF fired the missiles into the Kibbutz house? Expressing such things would see her savagely attacked. It seems very odd that she would make it up.