Some Wars Simply Must be Won…

When is winning a war absolutely necessary? It can be hard to say. Was Harold’s defeat at the hands of William in 1066 a good or bad thing for England, and for Britain and the world, in the light of subsequent history? I do know that Magna Carta subsequently came into being and that Britain ran an empire and was instrumental in freeing the world of slavery, in enshrining the rule of law, and in shaping and making the modern prosperous world. Not bad while, at the same time, colonising, civilising and populating the new territories of North America, Australia and New Zealand; and, to boot, inventing association football and cricket and other sporting codes.

So there it is — and I haven’t mentioned Sir Isaac Newton nor any of the scientific, engineering and artistic feats bequeathed to mankind. If Harold had won would this have changed history for the better or worse?

My only purpose in bringing this up is to suggest that losing a specific war might not be a bad thing when viewed in a counter-factual historical perspective. On the other hand, it is much safer to avoid losing wars. Being defeated by Germany and Japan in World War II would not have worked out well I think. Though from the perspective of modern-day Germans and Japanese it is at least arguable that defeat has been sweeter than victory would have been. Domestic populations eventually suffer from tyrannical regimes, if not as badly as the conquered.

One of the defining factors is the intentions of each of the respective warring parties. In the second world war it is fairly clear that the principal Axis powers had territorial ambitions and a certain callous disregard for the welfare of those whom they defeated. Whereas the Allies were interested primarily in restoring the pre-war status quo. Best not to lose if you future will be as slaves to overlords.

This brings me to Ukraine and Israel, and to why I have a different perspective on the two conflicts in which they are involved.

This is Dave Sharma as reported in The Australian on May 29: “I think the fundamental principles being tested [in the Israel-Gaza war] are the same [as in the Russia-Ukraine conflict]. Aggression cannot be rewarded.”

Aggression cannot be rewarded. Really?

Aggression is regularly rewarded. If I am not mistaken, the Norman nobility replaced the English nobility. The communists took South Vietnam. China owns Tibet and cows the world into compliance on the status of Taiwan. Turkey owns more than one third of Cyprus. Russia (de facto) owns Crimea. Whether an aggressor is rewarded depends on how big is the aggressor and how strategic the territory at risk for those who might defend it. Thus the fundamental principles being tested are hardly ever the same.

One fundamental principle turns on how the defeated party will fare. In the unlikely event that Ukraine were to win by pushing Russia out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea, then Russia would suffer the ignominy of defeat but would otherwise get on with Russian life; albeit broodingly plotting a rematch. If Russia were to win it would likely take over the four “annexed” provinces of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, along with cementing its incorporation of Crimea. Ukrainians would otherwise remain in control of the rest of Ukraine; join the EU and receive lots of reconstruction aid.

I am not sure how much blood and treasure should be expended to ensure that Ukraine wins in view of the likely outcome if they don’t.

The equation in the Israeli-Gaza war is much more straightforward. If Israel wins, the people of Gaza will have a chance for a peaceful more prosperous future – the fruits of defeat. The people of Israel will live more securely. If Hamas wins, it will not only put Israeli lives at growing risk, it will embolden its enemies more generally and put the very existence of Israel at risk. And if Israel were to lose to an invading Islamic force, slaughter would ensue, of that there is little doubt. The stakes are much higher than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. So much higher that there is no cost in terms of blood and treasure that should not be expended to ensure Israel wins. No level of support that should be withheld from Israel.

38 thoughts on “Some Wars Simply Must be Won…

  • Podargus says:

    A very narrow and ignorant view of the Ukraine conflict and typical of Putin supporters.
    Ukraine is an independent nation. It has been so for hundreds of years, in spirit if not in fact.
    Ukraine has a duty to resist invasion like any other nation.
    Russia has had control of Ukraine for about 200 years. Prior to that, Poland/Lithuania was in possession of a substantial part of it for about the same amount of time.
    Ukraine has suffered numerous invasions. It has a long and tragic history but none more tragic than under communist Russia.
    Now there is a recidivist psychopath + minions in control of Russia which has the largest land area of any nation in the world. Not enough, apparently, for lunatics with delusions of grandeur.
    Do you think, Mr Smith, that Vlad the Putrid will be satisfied with Ukraine, in part or whole? Consider the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, Moldavia and beyond. It has all happened before as recently as the last century.
    Don’t you recall ? In your comfortable ignorance.

    • Phillip says:

      Podargus, The Ukraine conflict will continue for as long as Barack Obama and Joe Biden are in office. The Democrat warmongers and the CIA have infiltrated and bastardised the Ukraine since 2014.
      Otherwise, it is another excellent Smith article.

      • Sindri says:

        Well done Phillip, you’ve got your article use down almost perfect. Small tip though, generally people talk these days about “Ukraine”, rather than “the Ukraine”.

    • Peter Smith says:

      It seems to me that lefties (and sadly some non-lefties) are incapable of looking at the Russia-Ukraine conflict objectively. They go all sentimental about Zelensky (while, by the way, usually sticking pins in Netanyahu). And if you don’t absolutely feel that way too you are a Putin stooge. Maybe in part it’s atonement by proxy for the sins of their forefathers in supporting the Russian commies. I know not.
      Suppose China threatened wholesale invasion unless we ceded control of all territory to the north of the 15 parallel south of the Equator. That would take in a tip of WA, a bigger piece of the NT, including Darwin, and a large chunk of the Cape York Peninsular. I think we should resist that overture and rush all available forces up north; and try to get the subs and ships out of the repair yards lickety-split. I might even pick up a gun and be cannon fodder. But if Kim Beazley is right, we ain’t got a chance. We’ll need the US. So to my question.
      How many thousands upon thousands of young American soldiers, sailors and airmen should be sacrificed, how many trillions of dollars should be spent, to push the Chinese back out to sea? Is there a limit? Nuclear weapons? They may have to weigh it up. And I suspect they would. And the question they will ask is what consequences will flow if China is allowed to occupy the land it wants and can the situation be controlled. That is realpolitik. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

      • Occidental says:

        Well Peter I suspect everyone who doesn’t agree with you cops the “lefty” epithet. The interesting thing is how “dead” the Australian labor government is running on the Ukraine Russia War. Twenty years ago Howard dumped a billion dollars in aid on Indonesia when it got hit by Tsunami. Yet here is a war which Australia is profiting obscenely from, and this government finds it hard to scrape up a few sheckels together to support Ukraine. I think a lot of the lefties are quietly supporting Russia, but can’t come out because such affection is abhorred by the rest of the civillised west. The strongest supporters of Ukraine are the UK and Poland, both with conservative or center right wing governments. It is not the left that supports Ukraine but the right.

        • Peter Smith says:

          Would agree with you Occidental that neo-cons on the right are always in the business of “warring” with Russia. And my throwaway about lefties might have been better kept unsaid, since it leads the debate away from the point. And it is often an unproductive aspect of debates that some of those engaged need little excuse to avoid the point.
          At the same time, it seems a stretch to say, “I think a lot of the lefties are quietly supporting Russia, but can’t come out because such affection is abhorred by the rest of the civilised west” – since an awful lot of lefties go out of their way to overtly support Ukraine. To wit, on April 23 the US House of Representatives passed the [$61 billion] Ukraine funding Bill by 311-112, with, according to Reuters “all ‘no’ votes coming from Republicans, many of whom were bitterly opposed to further assistance for Kyiv.” No Democrat voted no.
          As to Poland, it’s hardly surprisingly that it takes the Ukraine side against Russia. As to the UK, it is flight of fancy to think the government is centre-right. Though I wish it were true.

      • Sindri says:

        This sounds very much like the Sudetenland to me. And what of the very probable majority in the occupied oblasts who do not want to be part of Russia? Pro-Russian parties have never got a majority of votes in those areas, ever, except in Putin’s rigged referendum.

        • whitelaughter says:

          Sindri’s comparison to the Sudetenland is I think highly appropriate. Being allowed to keep the current gains gives Putin a springboard from which to launch new attacks.

    • Jack Brown says:

      Podargus you take a simplistic view.
      Supposedly yhe US administration imposed sanctions against Russia and encouraged its allies to do the same in order to punish Russia and force it to desist. So the Russian action is the cause and the sanctions are an effect. This was in 2022 right?
      How about one recalls the Wolfhowitz Doctrine formulated 30 years beforehand wherein neocon US Defense Under Secretary of that name advocated Russia be kept defeated if not broken up into several smaller countries.
      Then consider in 2019 the Military Industrial Complex’s think tank (RAND Corporation) published a strategy to address a supposedly hypothetical desire to remove Russia as a credible adversary of the US.
      This is in the public domain known as the Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground wherein RAND identified Ukraine as a theatre wherein they could stress Russia and cause it to do something that could be condemned and sanctions be imposed that would cause economic distress to Russia, sending it broke and causing difficultues for the regime. In other words the war was engineered to justify sanctions or the wish to diminish Russia is the cause and the war is an effect.

      You can check this out online and YT videos by RAND wherein they state that best way to stress Russia was to arm Ukraine and calculate that while this will cost the US it will cost Russia a lot more. Their lead analyst Raphael Cohen was quite explicit on this but noticeably missing in his cost-benefit analysis was any mention of the costs that would fall on Ukraine. Uktaine was, in effect, ignored.
      This is not to say Russia was justified in reacting to bring poked in the eye. Putin could have ignored the challenge but the US was counting on him accepting it. They knew Putin would do so as a tactic to relieve the stress they planned to impose on him, counting on his need to demonstrate his strength so as to overcome his feeling of being slighted 20 years prior when he had hoped to be regarded as one of the big boys on the world stage. Plus of course he has to project a strong man image lest hardliners depose him.

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    One fundamental rule for absolutist regimes and military dictatorships is ‘stay right out of foreign wars.’.’V.I. Lenin, responded to the Tsarist regime’s decision to enter WW1 (on the Allied side) with his tactic of revolutionary defeatism.. He actively worked for defeat of the Tasar’s army, and was supported by increasing numbers of troops on active service. Lesson: if you want to stay in business as an autocrat, keep right out of foreign wars. They only lead to trouble at home.
    General Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator, learned that the hard way when he took on Margaret Thatcher and the forces at her disposal in the Falklands War of 1982.
    Vlad Putin has already faced one military rebellion over his war in the Ukraine, and given the precedents in Russian history, a defeat there will likely result in him copping a bullet in the head somewhere downstairs in the Lubyanka. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bloke, IMHO.
    Which is most probably why he sits at what looks like the biggest desk in the world. This close, and no closer, if you know what’s good for you; or else I summon my (hopefully still loyal) bodyguards.!

  • brandee says:

    This is a well considered and broad submission by Peter Smith and it gets my support. The view by Podargus is narrow and locked in the past.
    What is often not acknowledged in these conflicts is self interest and big power politics. Consider the tit for tat rivalry between the US and Russia/USSR in Afghanistan. Russia invaded in 1979 to support a secular communist government against Muslim guerrillas. The US countered by arming the Taliban so the war weary Russians withdrew in 1989. The Taliban hosted al Queda which subsequently made a horrific terrorist attack on the US in 2001. In response the US invaded Afghanistan until war weary US President Biden withdrew forces in 2021.
    Russia is not pleased that Ukraine now has a pro-Western government and one that would deny Russia its historical claim to the Crimea. Previously the US was not pleased when Ukraine had a pro-Russian government and the US in self interest made continual efforts to destabilise it.
    Ukraine could cut its losses by negotiating a peace, Israel has no option but to win the conflict with Hamas.
    Sydney University has no other option, vice-Chancellor Scott, than to win against your encamped Hamas supporting students/Taliban.

    • cbattle1 says:

      brandee: I agree with your rational view of the Soviet Union/Russia, and the continual political aggression from the West, but do not agree that the USSR “invaded” Afghanistan in 1979. Most likely it is that the secular/socialist government in Kabul invited the Soviets in to help defend itself against the Islamic terrorists, or, if there was no formal request for military support, I am sure the government in Kabul did not see the Soviets as “invaders”, but as allies. Of course we were told by our governments that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as part of their long-term strategy of enslaving the World, and in particular the striking through Afghanistan to establish a warm-water naval base on the Arabian Sea and thus control the Indian Ocean, etc, etc.

    • Botswana O'Hooligan says:

      Thanks brandee, I also share many of your views for I lived and worked there from just after perestroika since originally one side of my family came from Russia or Poland depending on the border back then a few generations ago, and I jumped at the chance to go there. The place was a mess, terrible, as was The Ukraine, and the corruption absolutely unbelievable compared to what I had endured in S.E. Asia when hauling air freight for the people at the top in the ex Soviet union simply swapped their Marxist Leninist hats for capitalistic ones and continued on as normal, and the S.E. Asiatic crooks couldn’t hold a candle to these blokes. Gradually it all changed thanks to Putin who is reputed to be the wealthiest man in the Galaxy, and probably is, but he lifted the Russian “game” and started to drag it into a modern country whereas the succession of Ukrainian “presidents” has done no such thing. There is no point in me going on about Afghanistan way back when the Poms were there since Kabul is but 900 odd nautical miles from Moscow whereas it is many thousands away from London, or that Khruschev gave The Crimea to the Ukraine in 1956 when under the influence of something mighty powerful placed in his tea, or that Poroshenko opened the batting in 2014 by using artillery against the people in the Donbas area or that people there weren’t eligible for a pension, or that people in the Crimea were forbidden to speak Russian and if they were of Russian descent as most were and are since the Crimea was Russian from way back (that’s where Tartars originated) they weren’t eligible for any public service positions. The rumour is that the USA was heavily involved in The Ukraine long before this current blue (Hunter Biden for one) so it’s no wonder what is going on. Remember that Putin wanted to hold peace talks with The Ukraine way back but Boris Johnstone when the P.M. of the UK convinced Zelenskyy not to enter into peace talks. The armaments folks in the various Western countries would be over the moon with glee at the situation so won’t want a solution just yet, and so it drags on. My Russian family and most of our Russian friends absolutely detest Putin and his methods for holding power these twenty and more years but would someone else do a better job of modernising Russia is the question?? I always remember a remark my Russian born wife made to a German driving instructor when he was giving her a bad time gaining a drivers licence and it was, “remember Stalingrad” and of course Napolean Bonaparte didn’t have an easy time there either so we in the West might remember that.

      • dtu31393 says:

        Well said BH. Your points about the shelling of the Donbass and the discrimination of Russian speakers in Ukraine are not ones that Russian haters like to hear, however they are the key to the conflict. As Putin said, the war started in 2014. In the 8 years between the coup and the SMO, Ukraine had killed 13,000 Russians in the eastern oblasts. I’m sure the Russians haven’t forgotten the 2014 Odessa massacre either.

        The Ukraine and Gaza wars are very similar, in that the invaders went in to save their people against fanatical murderers.

    • Occidental says:

      Brandee – “Russia invaded in 1979 to support a secular communist government against Muslim guerrillas.”

      Where do you get this stuff from? The Soviets staged a coup detat to remove a socialist revolutionary regime that had the previous year staged a coup detat, and was trending towards maoism, or atleast extreme communism. Why? Who knows. Probably the Soviets did not know enough about the Khalq faction, and so wanted a different faction who they were familiar with. The trouble with putting orthodox Christian boots on the ground though, was that it got up the noses of the Afghans, and turned them into “Islamic warriors”. If the Soviets had just meddled from a distance, the mujahadin would never have existed.

  • cbattle1 says:

    Mr Peter Smith: I generally agree with what you’ve said about Russia and Ukraine, with the exception of what will be the impact of a Ukrainian victory. Faced with an nuclear armed NATO and Lefty progressive EU hard up against its borders, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, the non-military attacks against the Russian government would be relentless, until it collapses into civil war and chaos. The last civil war created the Soviet Union, but the likely outcome of the next probably will be a warring Balkanisation, with a liberated Chechnya and other Islamic republics rising in triumph. Why are so many blind to the fact that Russia has always needed buffer states between it and powers of the West; France under Napoleon, Germany/Austria/Hungary under the Kaiser, Emperor, and Fuhrer. Finland was one of those buffer states, but now it is part of the anti-Russian military and political alliance.
    The whole concept of territory is absurd, borders and demographics shift continually through history. WW2 started with the refusal of Britain and France to allow the German Reich to reclaim the German lands given to Poland by the infamous Treaty of Versailles. Wasn’t it Khrushchev who handed Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic? He certainly didn’t do it with the vision that one day the Ukraine would be allied with the West against Russia!
    The fear-mongering about Russia is absurd, tensions have only risen as NATO and the EU continued to advance Eastward. Russia hasn’t threatened anyone, It was the prospect of Ukraine’s merger with the hostile Western powers that forced Putin to act.
    Regarding the Middle East, Hamas did not start the war, rather we can trace that back to the British-Zionist plan during WW1. The battle of Oct 7, part of that long war, was commenced by the Palestinians of Gaza under the leadership of Hamas, as one chapter of that long war of Palestinian independence/survival.
    And what of the comments of Podargus regarding Ukrainian Nationalism? What about Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in what sense is he even Ukrainian? Born in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine to Russian speaking Jewish parents, Volodymyr’s mother tongue was Russian. As a Jew, he has the right to return to his eternal homeland of Israel, and if he did so, most likely Ukraine and Russia would quickly return to the former peaceful and friendly co-existence.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Good piece Peter and it’s pretty much the way I think as well.
    In my view the big bad thing is the way Russia seems to have been forced into some sort of pact with the real dangerman….China, for whom the Russians surely would have bad historical memories of, at least they should have.

  • Jack Brown says:

    “Was Harold’s defeat at the hands of William in 1066 a good or bad thing for England, and for Britain and the world, in the light of subsequent history? I do know that Magna Carta subsequently came into being and that Britain ran an empire and was instrumental in freeing the world of slavery, in enshrining the rule of law, and in shaping and making the modern prosperous world. Not bad while, at the same time, colonising, civilising and populating the new territories of North America, Australia and New Zealand; and, to boot, inventing association football and cricket and other sporting codes.”

    Absolutely. For the benefit of the world.

    The Godwinsons were a family of Scandinavian warlords under whom England was in peril of becoming a backwater of Scandinavian itself a backwater back then still pagan and on the periphery of Europe.

    William Duke of Normandy even though of Norman ancestry had become a dukedoom of the Continent, attached to Europe and, centuries into the future, to the World.

    There is an intriguing source for this assertion which suggests that the Norman Conquest had a spiritual impetus behind it, to achieve this result for the benefit of human evolution. However I shall post it when time permits.

  • Podargus says:

    It appears from the above that there is a hopefully small cell of Russophiles in the Quadrant commentariat.
    An obvious case of “can’t see the wood for the trees”.

    • Jack Brown says:

      It was Aristotle who observed that the first to cast a slur was the one who had no logic. But that was apparent from your initial rebuttal of Peter’s mostly dialectic argument with an emotionally based rhetorical argument.

      • David Isaac says:

        Well, this seems much more like an ad hominem attack than logic to me.
        Mr Smith’s argument for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a masterclasss in swindling. How will Gazans benefit from losing their home? They won’t. Israel and the Zionist project will benefit and it’s quite clear from Mr Smith’s previous contributions that he considers this the greatest of all goods, Where’s the “dialectic”?

        • Peter Smith says:

          It’s best to let many things go through to the keeper; swatting away at wayward bowling can be exhausting. But this is beyond the pale David Isaacs:
          “Mr Smith’s argument for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a masterclass in swindling. How will Gazans benefit from losing their home?… Israel and the Zionist project will benefit and it’s quite clear from Mr Smith’s previous contributions that he considers this the greatest of all goods.”
          Verballing someone is unbecoming. Play the ball, not the man, to keep to a sporting analogy.
          Losing one’s home is not a small thing, I agree. But they can and should be rebuilt bigger and better using materials otherwise used for constructing war tunnels.

          • pgang says:

            Pretty much everything the socialist troll types is beyond the pale. Let it all go through to the keeper. What they hate most is to be ignored.
            Besides, you’ve managed to ignore my comments these past years 🙂

          • David Isaac says:

            I’m struggling to see in what sense you feel you’ve been verballed Mr Smith. “If Israel wins, the people of Gaza will have a chance for a peaceful more prosperous future – the fruits of defeat.“ You make it sound so appealling but so far the invasion has killed tens of thousands with scant regard for civilians. I am sure I’m not alone in my skepticism of the promise of Israeli annexation for these people. Your suggestion that they will benefit from the destruction of their home is laughable and to the extent that your reader is meant to believe you, it amounts to a swindle. Jared Kushner made public his plans for waterfront develoments along the coast months ago and any Palestinians left in Gaza will be second class citizens under a foreign power which considers them to be ‘Amalek’. I will admit, given your apparent devotion to Zionism, that you might just honestly believe your, to me entirely implausible, claim, in which case the swindling would be inadvertent.
            Mr Gang’s contention that I am a socialist troll, based on what evidence I know not, is quite perplexing to me. Perhaps he might care to explain with examples what it is he’s talking about. I’m more inclined to see myself as a Christian libertarian and nationalist, a patriot of a rapidly vanishing Australia.


    Most posters on Q understand the meaning, implications and reality of the Latin advisory “Si vis pacem, para bellum”. Given China’s rapid military and teritorial expansion in Australia’s direction, one interpretation of this Latin phrase could be that because Australia has gutted their military capability to net zero then takeover by a foreign power, probably China, will start to materialize as the prophetic writing on our wall.
    Regarding wars that need to be won, I agree with the Peter Smith on the future of the Ukraine proxy war. As for Israel, the harsh reality that they must totally defeat and destroy Hamas is a given. Unfortunately though, it seems that Israel is going the way of the Vietnam conflict where the war was lost by the US and its allies like Australia due to adverse public opinion. With Israel vs Hamas, the weapons of public opinion benefit Hamas but undermine Israel.
    Returning to that Latin phrase “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, My impression is that those who apply the advice diligently will be the winners in any conflict. On the other hand, those appeasers of public opinion who are half-hearted or too comfortable in their peace will eventually lose out to a more determined power.

    • cbattle1 says:

      STJOHNOFGRAFTON: Having gladiatorial contests rather than football matches was a good way to keep the Roman population martial-minded!
      It is naïve in the extreme to think that Gazans will be leaping for joy and embracing their Israeli liberators when that last Hamas supporter is killed! The Gazans are mainly made up of the refugees from the Nakba, forced to live on that strip of land, and their desire is to return home.

  • nfw says:

    “China owns Tibet and cows the world into compliance on the status of Taiwan. ”

    Cows? Would that be milk cows or just beef? And what about soy with added sugar cows?

    How about “cowers”?

    • Peter Smith says:

      To nfw esquire. Cow – “cause someone to submit to one’s wishes by intimidation.” OED.
      Cower – “crouch down in fear.” OED. QED.

      • lbloveday says:

        “quod erat demonstrandum”, although 60+ years ago we learned “quid est datum” from Mr O’Neil, our English and Latin teacher.
        Whichever, spot on PS, big fail nfw.

  • Jack Brown says:

    In regard to Ukraine there is the complication that it is the theater of operations for more than one conflict. There is the war of Washington neocons, mostly descended from East European immigrants a century ago, and most having Jewish ancestry, against the Russian regime by way of war of revenge for the traumas inflicted by State and Church going back to when Russia absorbed large swaythes of Poland and its considerable Jewish populations. Basically these people are using their public offices for private benefit of revenge. Another conflict is Putin’s need to demonstrate his power. In a way this is a conflict with himself, like Gollum and his fascination with the ring of power, drawn to it but knowing it controls him. An other conflict is between the Russian military and the Ukrainian. Then there are the internal struggles on each side eg the Azov gangsters on the Ukrainian side and the Wagner organization in Russia. As with Peter’s dichotomy so too within Ukraine there are aspects where one must hope for victory and hope for defeat.

  • Michael Mundy says:

    This article is predicated on the belief that Hamas is a tangible entity that can be defeated. That is not the case. If we call this version Hamas 1.0, which is probably not the actual case as many versions would have been evident during its evolution, then at the end of the current war we can expect Hamas 2.0. The Hydra that is Islamist terrorism will just grow another head or two. A swift and powerful response from Netanyahu would have been sufficient to avenge October 7th. The current drawn out conflict chasing an idea might have killed the odd terrorist but has done nothing but turn remaining Gazans, many other Palestinians and sympathising Islamist nations into accelerated incubators for Hamas 2.0 or its rebranded Phoenix that will wreak havoc on Israel for decades to come. Israel jumped the shark.

  • dtu31393 says:

    Well said Peter. There can only be one winner in the Israel / Hamas war and whoever loses will be destroyed. Hamas has already been rewarded for their aggression by craven nations such as Australia voting for a Palestinian state in the UN. If they are successful in stopping the war before Hamas is destroyed, then Hamas wins. Is the Australian government too stupid to realise that, or do they hate Jews?

  • Paul.Harrison says:

    Let us surmise that Palestine is Hamas. With that, then this:

    Premise 1: Palestine has applied to become a member of the UN.
    Premise 2: Palestine is forcibly ruled by Hamas.
    Premise 3: Hamas is a terrorist organisation, duly judged by the UN.
    Premise 4: Australia is supporting Hamas in its membership appliation to the UN..
    Premise 5: $65 Million (and some, and ongoing) dollars was Australia’s contribution to the UN for 2024.

    The inescapable conclusion: Australia is actively supporting and financing Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

    Edfitors Note: Once it inevitably becomes a member of the UN, Hamas will become the richest and most well-resourced terrorist organisation in the history of UN approved terrorist organisations. It will never be required to account for the money, and the countries? forming the snake pit of the UN will tug their forelock and bow to their new masters.

    A pox on all their houses. “Henry, pass me the musket, would you, dear chap? And make sure the powder is dry!”

  • Marcus Harris says:

    From what I have gleaned it seems that despite Hamas being seen in the media as fronted by diplomatic gentlemen, it is a militant organisation run by cowardly psychopaths. Whether they are Palestinians or not they are using the idea of heavenly martyrdom to further their anti Israel ideology. Israel has to win the Gaza war, otherwise Iran and its proxies will never stop attacking Israel.
    As for Gaza’s future, I have no solution other than to think that Egypt and Jordan and perhaps Saudi should be directly involved.

Leave a Reply