Israel v Hamas

[steeleye20]

Anybody noticed how politicians, traditionally in defence reviews, parrot the UK as being a force for good in the world?

Not this time, and probably no more.

The UK has a large base in Cyprus and could have flown in humanitarian aid, instead it has become complicit in a genocide.

At the same time as we cut aid to desperate people, labour resumes TBs war-footing UK, how great was that.

🙁

 

[eaglesdare]

Yes but these are specific reports by many different surgeons about specific gunshot wounds. What position would they have to have to make up such reports?

And those gunshot wounds could have been caused by Hamas 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[eaglesdare]

Anybody noticed how politicians, traditionally in defence reviews, parrot the UK as being a force for good in the world?

Not this time, and probably no more.

The UK has a large base in Cyprus and could have flown in humanitarian aid, instead it has become complicit in a genocide.

At the same time as we cut aid to desperate people, labour resumes TBs war-footing UK, how great was that.

🙁

The UK has delivered aid to Gaza since 2023.

Have a read: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9900/

 

[Glazier#1]

And those gunshot wounds could have been caused by Hamas 🤷🏻‍♂️

Of course.

 

[steeleye20]

It would make a considerable difference if the UK and France were to recognise the Palestinian State, the central demand for the Arab States which 180 other nations have recognised.

Only the USA is left supporting Israel in the UN, blocking all moves.

US suggests Palestinian state should ‘be in the French Riviera’​

Can they, just for once, stand up to this bullying from the USA?

It doesn't feel like it.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Of course.

Yes because in urban warfare with militants hiding amongst civilians, it's very possible to get caught in crossfire.

 

[Glazier#1]

Yes because in urban warfare with militants hiding amongst civilians, it's very possible to get caught in crossfire.

Of course. I would add, though, that the reports were of injuries not consistent with cross-fire but with sniper fire: very specific. It could be snipers from either side. Or both.

 

[DanH]

Of course. I would add, though, that the reports were of injuries not consistent with cross-fire but with sniper fire: very specific. It could be snipers from either side. Or both.

Genuinely nuts. You’ve got someone who started/co owns this site peddling this nonsense.

Ignoring every little bit of evidence as propaganda or from activists.

Only so long it can carry on.

 

[Glazier#1]

As with many instances in life it'll come down to the individual.

You will get those that are there, significantly risking their lives to ease suffering.....god's work. These people are found all over the world helping the poorest and most vulnerable (it doesn't have to be dual purpose though we know it often is).

Of those people a probably high percent will also have strong political views or motives....Only a small percent are likely risking their lives out of pure altruism.

As long as they aren't taking up arms it's good that they are there....Red Cross stuff and the like should always be respected by all sides.

‘Probably’ according to whom? You? ‘A high percent’ what percentage? And which precise data can you point to to back it up?? ‘Only a smal percent’ What percentage, precisely, and which study are you citing, Leftie?

In other words you’re stating your own feelings, political agenda as some sort of quasi scientific fact.

That’s just baseless and silly.

Not even your sage, professorial patina will make it anything but.

 

[Stirlingsays]

‘Probably’ according to whom? You? ‘A high percent’ what percentage? And which precise data can you point to to back it up?? ‘Only a smal percent’ What percentage, precisely, and which study are you citing, Leftie?

In other words you’re stating your own feelings, political agenda as some sort of quasi scientific fact.

That’s just baseless and silly.

Not even your sage, professorial patina will make it anything but.

It's called common sense lad, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Glazier#1]

It's called common sense lad, you wouldn't understand.

Hmmm…..

Yup. That’s about the size of it.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Genuinely nuts. You’ve got someone who started/co owns this site peddling this nonsense.

Ignoring every little bit of evidence as propaganda or from activists.

Only so long it can carry on.

How many times do I have to repeat this... If you blindly believe every 'news report' coming out of a warzone controlled by a terror group, you're not informed — you're a propaganda sponge. Yes civilians are getting injured and killed and it is heartbreaking. Some stories about how it happened will be correct, some will be false! Nobody knows the full facts for every incident. How the f*** can you tell sitting safe and sound in an office in London? In Gaza, there are no independent journalists, no press freedom, and zero fact-checking. It’s not journalism, it’s narrative warfare. Wake up. You're sounding more and more like a Hamas apologist.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Of course. I would add, though, that the reports were of injuries not consistent with cross-fire but with sniper fire: very specific. It could be snipers from either side. Or both.

I don't know what exactly happened in that particular incident as we don't have the full facts. You could be right or you could be wrong in your analysis. However, you seem to be very certain!

 

[DanH]

How many times do I have to repeat this... If you blindly believe every 'news report' coming out of a warzone controlled by a terror group, you're not informed — you're a propaganda sponge. Yes civilians are getting injured and killed and it is heartbreaking. Some stories about how it happened will be correct, some will be false! Nobody knows the full facts for every incident. How the f*** can you tell sitting safe and sound in an office in London? In Gaza, there are no independent journalists, no press freedom, and zero fact-checking. It’s not journalism, it’s narrative warfare. Wake up. You're sounding more and more like a Hamas apologist.

When someone is absolutely flailing and has little left in their argument.

 

[DanH]

Hmmm…..

Yup. That’s about the size of it.

You really know this site is struggling when Stirling and eaglesdare are trying to take the position of intellectual superiority.

Wayne and Garth wearing mortarboards they found in a skip.

 

[Glazier#1]

I don't know what exactly happened in that particular incident as we don't have the full facts. You could be right or you could be wrong in your analysis. However, you seem to be very certain!

Yes, if I accept reports from operating surgeons of suspected sniper fire at and on the scene, I stated, to be balanced, that it could have come from either or both sides, which is certain.

Now, what else am I very certain about?

 

[silvertop]

How many times do I have to repeat this... If you blindly believe every 'news report' coming out of a warzone controlled by a terror group, you're not informed — you're a propaganda sponge. Yes civilians are getting injured and killed and it is heartbreaking. Some stories about how it happened will be correct, some will be false! Nobody knows the full facts for every incident. How the f*** can you tell sitting safe and sound in an office in London? In Gaza, there are no independent journalists, no press freedom, and zero fact-checking. It’s not journalism, it’s narrative warfare. Wake up. You're sounding more and more like a Hamas apologist.

That is hardly the fault of the news agencies. It is Israel who ban journalists not Hamas. Their reasons might be sound, but you can't question the outcome. And how do you suggest the facts be checked?

As to the casualty reports, who knows? Hamas figures can't be trusted, but what else have we? Israel won't publish estimates. Politically lethal and inaccurate for different reasons.

Last year the UN claimed the Hamas figures probably understated the total as they were based on body counts. Direct hits leave nothing to count. Neither do irrecoverable buried people (where Israel blocks rescue efforts).

But this nice statistical discussion leaves open the obvious question. Does it really matter? 20,000 (8,800, 800)? 50,000 (22,000, 2,000)? 70,000 (30,800, 2,700)?

With 44% being children, they represent the first approximate figures in brackets. With 9% of Palestinians being Christian, the second figures in brackets represents the approximate number of Christian children killed.

In those boring figures, the number of Hamas fighters who might have got caught in the blasts is likely to be statistically insignificant.

While it defies belief that there remain those out there who still support this Israeli government (not the majority of Israelis who will stop the killing today if the hostages were returned), perhaps you could identify which of the above figures you consider to be an acceptable level of civilian loss.

 

[DanH]

That is hardly the fault of the news agencies. It is Israel who ban journalists not Hamas. Their reasons might be sound, but you can't question the outcome. And how do you suggest the facts be checked?

As to the casualty reports, who knows? Hamas figures can't be trusted, but what else have we? Israel won't publish estimates. Politically lethal and inaccurate for different reasons.

Last year the UN claimed the Hamas figures probably understated the total as they were based on body counts. Direct hits leave nothing to count. Neither do irrecoverable buried people (where Israel blocks rescue efforts).

But this nice statistical discussion leaves open the obvious question. Does it really matter? 20,000 (8,800, 800)? 50,000 (22,000, 2,000)? 70,000 (30,800, 2,700)?

With 44% being children, they represent the first approximate figures in brackets. With 9% of Palestinians being Christian, the second figures in brackets represents the approximate number of Christian children killed.

In those boring figures, the number of Hamas fighters who might have got caught in the blasts is likely to be statistically insignificant.

While it defies belief that there remain those out there who still support this Israeli government (not the majority of Israelis who will stop the killing today if the hostages were returned), perhaps you could identify which of the above figures you consider to be an acceptable level of civilian loss.

Being able to cast doubt on every single news report coming out of Gaza is extremely convenient, isn’t it?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Amazingly similar to the exchanges on here - lie, misrepresent, half-truths, any scrutiny must mean you support Hamas or hate jews.

The Youtube comments and general social media response to this interview are very telling.

 

[Penge Eagle]

That is hardly the fault of the news agencies. It is Israel who ban journalists not Hamas. Their reasons might be sound, but you can't question the outcome. And how do you suggest the facts be checked?

As to the casualty reports, who knows? Hamas figures can't be trusted, but what else have we? Israel won't publish estimates. Politically lethal and inaccurate for different reasons.

Last year the UN claimed the Hamas figures probably understated the total as they were based on body counts. Direct hits leave nothing to count. Neither do irrecoverable buried people (where Israel blocks rescue efforts).

But this nice statistical discussion leaves open the obvious question. Does it really matter? 20,000 (8,800, 800)? 50,000 (22,000, 2,000)? 70,000 (30,800, 2,700)?

With 44% being children, they represent the first approximate figures in brackets. With 9% of Palestinians being Christian, the second figures in brackets represents the approximate number of Christian children killed.

In those boring figures, the number of Hamas fighters who might have got caught in the blasts is likely to be statistically insignificant.

While it defies belief that there remain those out there who still support this Israeli government (not the majority of Israelis who will stop the killing today if the hostages were returned), perhaps you could identify which of the above figures you consider to be an acceptable level of civilian loss.

Thanks for a considered post with some data and less moral grandstanding. You're right that war brings human suffering and the loss of life, especially children which is devastating.

You are also correct that Israel restricts access but Hamas has a long track record of manipulating and even killing Palestinian reporters who don't toe the line. I'll say it louder to those at the back... Every camera or story goes through the Hamas filter.

The UN doesn't verify Gaza casualty figures – just repeats those from the Hamas Health Ministry. It's not verified UN data. In the 2014 conflict, analysis by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported that a higher percentage of the dead were militants after Hamas had initially claimed almost all were civilians.

No number is "acceptable" but there is a difference between collateral damage and war crimes. There would be less civilian deaths if Hamas did not embed themselves in schools, homes and hospitals. Hamas openly admits it doesn't build bomb shelters for the people and its hundreds of miles of underground tunnels are not to be used to protect civilians! A couple of war crimes right there.