Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Slowly slowly it’s dawning on those on the left that the world is a batshit crazy place and we in Ireland and wider EU spend next to nothing on defence.

You didn't miss the ICJ ruling. There hasn't been one. Last time I checked the ICJ respects the right to a fair trial.

Ireland couldn't do it all, but I agree that it could do its fair share of the work. A complete rebuild is necessary, and we have a world-class construction industry in this country—the very people who will be needed in Gaza. I think the US and some of the major players in the Middle East will end up funding it when push comes to shove. I think that Trump's migration plan for Gaza is utter nonsense and the people of Gaza will remain in Gaza during the re-build. I believe Israel will take a step back from Gaza going forward, and I think that is a good idea.

Why are so many people who are pro-Palestinian unwilling to commit to doing work on the ground during the rebuild?

Ah, ok, I misunderstood your post stating that Israel is not guilty of Genocide and assume the ICJ had adjudicated on the case.

So, as we were then. Israel before the ICJ accused of Genocide and iCC arrest warrants in place for alleged war criminals Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif.

And it does of course go without saying that both the ICC and ICJ would deliver nothing but a fair trial. Assuming of course that the alleged war criminals attend The Hague and provide evidence to the ICC of their innocence, rather than remaining on the run and at large.

Simon Harris's stance on the Israel/Hamas war got him and many of his party ilk elected. At the end of the day that's what's important in politics, getting elected, isn't it?

You're the one that said the Irish sued for peace and gave up fighting. And you seemed to think what Ireland did was relevant. Do I need to quote the post?

And let me get this straight re Ukraine. If a country is invaded and defeated, then everyone in the country should just give up. No more fighting. Doesn't matter how the victor treats the defeated. If for example a large number are expelled and land is settled by the victors, the defeated party should just roll over and stop.

The problem is both sides historically have refused concessions that could have led to a lasting solution but unfortunately it is Israel that holds the hammer and Palestine is the nail so that poster was indicating that a lasting peace was probably only going to have come from the Palestinian side being willing to make larger concessions, however unjust they might be.

Ireland in 1921 broadly accepted that negotiating conditions were as good as they had ever been, concessions would have to be made, and continuing war until the UK left Ireland entirely was not remotely feasible on a practical level.

Here we are 100 years later and Northern Ireland is still very much a part of the UK and there's no sign of that changing in the near future either. We had a civil war because not everyone agreed with that decision in 1921, but most people supported the Free State getting the best deal it could under the circumstances.

Something can be the right decision without that decision accepting that it is fair or just.

Those conditions in 1921 were made possible by the fact Ireland was a largely rural country, and the UK found it extremely difficult to maintain control outside urban areas, whereas Gaza is one relatively small, dense urban environment.

Plus UK public opinion was very much against what was happening in Ireland, putting further pressure on the UK Government.

It is impossible for Hamas to exert that same pressure on Israel from a military POV and it doesn't help that the entire region is broadly politically accepting of Israel but public opinion wise, hostile to Israel.

Hamas and its backers are a problem on the Palestinian side and Israel's unchecked expansion and devastating responses to attacks are a major problem on the other.

What is the solution to peace? I have no idea. What do people generally think a feasible solution is? The two-state solution seems dead in the water with no real appetite on either side, either politically or public opinion wise.

Comparisons are often drawn with Ukraine/Russia but the stark difference there is that Ukraine's military is having battlefield success and grinding Russia down, in tandem with huge blows to Russias economy to a point that it's very, very feasible that Russia will be forced to withdraw, or to the table, on conditions generally favorable to Ukraine in the wider scheme of things.

With that in mind, what is the future for Palestine? Rebuild Gaza only to have it razed again 20 years from now? I can't see the US calling Israel to heel either and even if they exerted greater pressure Israel is a very powerful country in its own right, it is not on US life support to the extent is often made out.

It's not really a question of if the Palestinians have the right to fight, or is Israel is wrong - even though it's fine to have answers to those questions - it's what is the roadmap to peace within the reality of the situation and what does it look like in a realistic sense.

I don't, by the way, think the solution is Trumps "To Hell or to Connacht" Riviera plan.

Not sure what you mean by quoting posts. Do we not at least understand each others position so there’s no need to quote supposed gotchas?

But to repeat, You think the entire 700 year history of Irish English conflict is relevant to the Israel Arab conflict so you think the battle of vinegar hill, the 1916 rising, the battle of kinsale is relevant. I don’t think that. You can relate the provos in the north to the Israel Arab conflict but it’s a reach. They are just very different wars. You brought Ireland into this so I’m just engaging with your point. I wouldn’t be too quick to relate the two wars or occupations myself.

Yes, a country should surrender and make peace if they can’t make any impression at all in war. It’s not that controversial a point. Making peace in this case would be a two state solution (the Irish solution) but that option looks to be dead forever now because Israel dont need a two state solution and the Arabs have almost no leverage to cast for one.

What is maybe, possibly, likely to happen in ukraine is Russia winning and ukraine surrendering in terms of a conventional army war and it becoming a counter insurgency that ukraine can make life very difficult for the Russian occupying forces. It’s one possible solution that strangely never gets mentioned considering it’s what we’ve seen in other recent invasion occupations.

But the Arabs don’t have the option of that kind effective counter insurgency because their opponent is too strong and ruthless (illegally so) and their land base is too small.

But everytime the Palestinians have accepted an negotiated plan with Israel, Israel has gone back on it. The best example is where Netanyahu actually called for the death of Rabin after he signed an agreement. And Rabin was killed a short time later by a far right zionist.

In that case the PLO gave up violence and kept to their promise. But it got them nowhere. Fatah are still combating extremists in the westbank. But it does them no good.

I'm wondering what would happen if Trump actually goes ahead with his plan.

If they expel millions from Gaza, then what next. The arab countries have already said they are against it. I can't see any of the countries in the region collaborating with the US/Israel regarding this.

So what happens after that? Would Egypt fight? Shoving millions of refugees into their country would be a big shock. Would other countries join them?

And even if they don't fight I think the US will have lost them as an ally permanently. They could stop all trade with the US. And considering how many are OPEC, that's bad. they could kick them out of the bases they have in the region. And they could align themselves with Russia/China.

And if they didn't do any of those things, they could face a lot of internal dissent from their own populations.

I'm not making a direct comparison. there's similarities but there's also differences. I would say for example that a long term peaceful solution needs to be found now, because NI is a good example of a problem that lasts too long. It's also an example of a kind of peace that can be gained when a terrorist force is negotiated with.

My main point is that you can't expect a defeated people to just roll over and stop fighting. And there's no point calling them stupid for continuing to fight when they're continuing to be oppressed. Sometimes these conflicts can last hundreds of years. The simple fact that they haven't gained freedom in previous fights, is no reason to stop fighting. The reason to stop is when they have freedom.

Uhh, fact? You're asserting something without proof. Nice to have opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/05/trump-gaza-republican-reaction

His critical comments were an outlier among Republicans, although Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, said he foresaw issues if Trump moved ahead with his declared intention of making Gaza “the Riviera of the Middle East”, and sending US troops to secure the war-torn territory “if it’s necessary”.

“We’ll see what our Arab friends say about that,” Graham said, reported by Politico.

“I think most South Carolinians would probably not be excited about sending Americans to take over Gaza. I think that might be problematic, but I’ll keep an open mind.”

He said Gaza “would be a tough place to be stationed as an American”.

Trump’s head-spinning pronouncement appeared to catch many Republican politicians off guard, including North Carolina senator Thom Tillis.

“There’s probably a couple of kinks in that slinky, but I’ll have to look at the statement,” he said.

Looks like he hasn't got much support even in his own party.

Given the deep distrust between both sides, as seen during the ceasefire negotiations, it’s fair to say that Gaza and its people will want Israel to have as little involvement in the rebuilding process as possible. The reconstruction of Gaza, including funding, will need to come from other sources. On the other hand, it would be morally wrong to expect Israelis to fund the rebuilding of Gaza, particularly one governed by terrorists who seek their destruction.

Who is the "we" in the sentence: "We can all agree their response was disproportionate and most likely a crime that should be punished."? The ICC and ICJ will determine whether their response was disproportionate.

Why wouldn’t Israel support Ukraine? Ukrainians don’t seem to have an issue with Israel—a comfortable majority (69%) support Israel, while only 1% support Palestine. Tens of thousands have moved to Israel since Russia invaded Ukraine, and thousands of Russians have also relocated to Israel to escape the war. Guess how many refugees Palestine has taken in?

The ICJ did just that 7 months ago:

The ICJ delivered its opinion on 19 July 2024. It concluded that Israel should put an end to its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established. It further concluded that where Palestinians have lost land and property, that Israel should pay reparations.