Israel are going to start WWIII

Again, it's about the surrender of Hamas as well as the handover of hostages.

Its a terrible situation where neither side will emerge without blood on their hands. I wouldn't bat for either team. Both sides are rotten. I'd be very uncomfortable with anyone who sides unwaiveringly with either one.

And I have no doubt you do condemn it.

That kind of speech has no part to play in any conflict. Hamas and Hezbollah have used similar and equally disgusting language. I have certainly used the term "pariah" to describe Israel inasmuch as they have "lost the public vote" around the world. But to describe people using animal phrases or diseases is uncalled for - on all sides.

I had meant to add context to that post by the way but my butter fingers got in the way.

No worries. I just have noticed some people have a habit of "if you don't say bad things about x, you support y".

Just wanted to clarify. Wasn't accusing you of anything.

Are you one of those who agrees that murder of 2 justifies murder of 1200 ?

You just highlighted that our president did lie, congratulations

“President Higgins said that Israel demanding UNIFIL walk away”

Thats a clear claim that an explicit threat was made when it now turns out no such thing happened

At the end of the war, when it is safe to do so

By this stage it should be clear to all that Israel never acts on its own, that it is a proxy of the US at ll times, albeit one that has huge control over aspects of the US foreign policy via its zionist cadres in positions of power in the US.

We are being asked to indulge in magical thinking: that Mossad has all those supposed abilities of penetration, that its military industrial complex is the most advanced in the world (even more so than say Russia, or in some respects more advanced than the USA itself), that it can destroy all comers at will …

Now I accept that it has huge military capability for a state of its size, but at the same time - if the US didn't support and supply it it would soon wither and die.

It's actions are at arms length from the US, but invariably favour the US even when it is carrying out the current genocide, as this is an example of what could happen to anyone who steps out of line in the middle east - plausible deniability, in other words.

The report doesn't say what the target was - could have been something nearby. But if seven medics were killed, presumably is was very close by and the IDF would have know that. But flouted international law anyway. And they have form in that regard.

Health workers in Lebanon describe deadly Israeli attacks on colleagues and fear more | AP News

I don't think the president of Ireland is "a pathetic lying twat" (note - your words).

It was posted earlier but by virtue of the IDF placing their active artillery within metres of the Irish post, it made the Irish post a direct target. That is a threat to the safety of those UN Peacekeeping troops.

It was also posted that its rather suspicious that the IDF particularly used the Irish post - given what Israel has accused Ireland of.

If Israel was still operating with a left wing government most of them would be singing a very different song, indeed, and condemning what that country is doing. That's how stupid and simplistically partisan all of this is.

People like that aren't even worth a second of your time.

i'm in no way tolerant, but I fully believe that people should be able to exist peacefully where they were born. this does not include the inbred nation of isreal

Which of those three words do you think doesn't apply to him? He got caught out in a porkie about Israel leaking a letter which, if he had respected his supposedly non-political role as president he should never have written in the first place, and when called on that, doubled down rather than admit he had been in the wrong on both those aspects. Now he has made up a threat which did not happen. More evidence of his inability to remain above politics.

Or maybe it's just arrogance in believing that the rules are not for him.

Perhaps you think that makes him a good president. I think it sets a terrible example about the value of truth, and an equally terrible constitutional precedent. And I used to quite like him.

Not particularly aimed at you but the focus on numbers is moot and in my opinion, counterproductive.

It doesn't matter how many Israelis were killed versus how many Palestinians were killed. Civilians were killed - there is no justification for that, on either side.

In the wider discourse about genocide in Gaza, there have been attempts to justify no genocide is happening "because the Palestinian population is increasing". The other justification is that "sure Israeli could have a killed many many more but they haven't". The definition of genocide does not dictate a "number" - just a set of circumstances.

Another post recently asked if it was "10,000, 12,000 or 16,000 children killed in Gaza" - its irrelevant. A lot of children were killed and that's all that is necessary to know.

I do note that the rules of war do not prohibit collateral damage provided rules are followed. In war, civilians are killed but as long as the target is clearly a military target and reasonable care has been taken to avoid civilian casualties etc., then that action would not normally be classed as a war crime.

Note that both Hamas and Israeli actors have been named in actions under review by the ICC for war crimes.

Israel is under review by the ICJ for genocide and the ICJ declared in July that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful).

Dupe post , site borked again?

Yes - the X versus Y numbers game is counterproductive and ultimately meaningless when talking about the loss of innocent human life.

Whilst I have strong views on the absolute carnage and destruction visited upon Gaza, I would not suggest for a second that that justifies any retaliation against Israeli civilians.

When it comes to combatants, its a different story of course.