War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie, I have made no secret of what I think of your comments so far on this issue, and I believe them to have a clear, harmful, and direct impact on Jewish people. But at no stage have I considered you a Hamas fan boy and the idea of you endorsing their approach is unthinkable. There is no need to make any statements about you not endorsing the beheading of babies, in much the same way that there should be no need for me to say I'm not a supporter of ethnic cleansing.

Okay, I consider us to be clear on both points. I don't support Hamas and you don't support ethnic cleansing. Good.

[Octavious]

Simple question to Fritzl and Octavious:

If Israel totally wins and achieves everything they are currently pursuing:

1. What will be left of the Palestinian people? Where will they be able to live safely?

That's all.

In what sense is it a simple question? You don't even know what they are pursuing, unless you are referring to your antisemitic fantasy about Isreal sending all Gazans to mass graves. But if that is the case you have answered your own question. Or are you finally admitting that it was a lie after all?

I am asking you what you think the outcome will be, for the Palestinian people, if Israel achieves its aims.

Isreal is reacting to an attack from Gaza, so its short term aims are unlikely to have anything to do with the West Bank at all. Isreal wants to get into Gaza and destroy the Hamas leadership and cripple their ability to launch attacks on Isreal. They'd also like to get their hostages back.

For the ordinary people of Gaza this means a lot of people getting caught in the crossfire for a period of time, followed by a return to the status quo. A high water mark of bleakness before life returns to its standard pretty bleak conditions.

Israel's long term aims are to have a prosperous and secure state that has cordial relations with its neighbours. The great tragedy for Palestinians being that a complete Isreali victory would be a significant improvement over their current existence

[Jamiet99uk]

Israel's long term aims are to have a prosperous and secure state that has cordial relations with its neighbours. The great tragedy for Palestinians being that a complete Isreali victory would be a significant improvement over their current existence.

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

(Side note: Have you noticed you keep mis-spelling "Israel" as "Isreal"?)

[Octavious]

I've not, no. Must be an error in the phone's autocorrect. I suspect a Chinese Communist plot

In terms of a further explanation, is it not obvious? Gaza exists now effectively as a city state surrounded by hostile neighbours. In order to be viable it needs either more land to provide self sufficiency, or cordial relations and trade with its neighbours. It has neither, so it eeks out a miserable existence as a charity case, reliant on outside aid from various groups who can exert undue power and influence in exchange for what they provide. It's population, already too large for the size of the territory, continues to grow at an alarming rate, presumably because the people have nothing else to do.

Conflict with Israel is good for Hamas. It keeps the anger of the people focused on an external enemy rather than the failings of their leadership, and gives a reason for Hamas' existence. The Hamas leadership are rather wealthy, with the top ranking leaders choosing not only to enrich themselves at the people's expense, but choosing not to live in Gaza at all. Preferring instead the prosperous footballing Mecca and resort nation that is Qatar.

With Hamas removed the people of Gaza at least have a chance. If Israel can make themselves feel safe and stop seeing Gaza as a perpetual threat that would open the door to normalised relations, the chance of relative prosperity, and opportunities for those who wish to leave to do so.

The price of an Israeli victory is giving up on the idea of a restored Palestine, and if the hardliners have their way it means giving up further areas of the West Bank and Jerusalem. This would be gutting for them, but is still preferable in many respects to the status quo

[CaptainFritz28]

Not wishing to give the impression that I don't trust your word on this, but I don't trust your word on this. You have shown yourself all too eager to lie in order to stoke hatred against Isreal and Jews. But even if true, it hardly changes anything.

This is an unpleasant personal attack.

I do not hate Jewish people and at no point have I made any statements indicating hatred of Jews, not encouraging such.

The present Government of Israel are violent fascists and it is not anti-semitic to say that.

As to the event I was talking about, here is one news story, from the Associated Press, which I hope you consider a relatively neutral source:

https://apnews.com/article/israel-pales ... 5ce54e727b

As you will see from the article, a mob of extremist Israeli settlers went into a Palestinian village and started setting fire to cars. When Palestinians came out of their homes to confront them, the Israeli settlers opened fire. Qusai Matan, a 19-year old Palestinian civilian, was shot dead by one of the settlers, Elisha Yared. Itamar Ben-Gvir, currently Israel's Minister for National Security, has described Yared, a murderer, as a "hero", as noted in the AP article.

Two days ago another Israeli settler shot and killed a Palestinian man who was peacefully harvesting olives:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... -104457880

On 11th October militant Israeli settlers Israeli entered the West Bank village of Qusra and murdered three civilians. The following day, Israeli settlers then attacked the funeral procession for these murder victims, murdering two more people. All of this reported by the BBC here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67173344

I am not making these things up.

So I ask you again, do these Palestinian civilians have the right to defend themselves? What should they do? Israel will not protect them; Israeli Government Ministers think it is heroic to murder them.

Alright, let's use your sources. If they are accurate, 7 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since the October 7 attacks, and 75 since 2005 in total. We don't know anything about the moments leading up to the deaths, at least not those in the sources listed. In the abc article, the Israelis claim self defense. In this case, it is a matter of one's word against another's. We know that in the case of the first source, rather than held as a hero, the Israeli suspect was taken to court and detained. They pled that it was self defense, and when found not guilty, the Israeli judicial system continued to search for the perpetrator. Nowhere in your sources, nor in any that I have seen at all, have any in the Israeli government have called murders "heroic."

Now let's put that into perspective. More people are murdered every two months in Chicago than Palestinians in the West Bank for 18 years, according to your source. Would you consider Chicago an extremist tyrannical government? Maybe you would. Regardless, the fact remains that these are, while evil, not isolated to Israel. This doesn't prove that Israel is more corrupt than any other country on Earth.
On the other hand, let's take it as the threat which Hamas is defending the Palestinians from. Let's say that the October 7 attack was a matter of self defense for Palestine. Is 75 deaths justification for a full scale invasion of another country? I think not.

(I apologize for just now responding to this; I figured I ought to as it was the only evidence that has been brought up.)

[orathaic]

If someone comes into your home with aging, and shoot you when you tell them it is your home and you should leave, that is not self-defence.

The courts have shown so measure of judgement against these illegal settlements, and the result was the current govt trying to replace the courts.

[CaptainFritz28]

If someone comes into your home with a gun, and shoots you when you tell them it is your home and they should leave, that is not self-defence.

The courts have shown no measure of judgement against these illegal settlements, and the result was the current govt trying to replace the courts.

Good points. What I'm saying is that innocence should not be presumed before guilt is well determined. But even if the courts are entirely corrupt (and I'm sure there is some measure of truth to that), the rest of what I am saying still holds.

[Octavious]

Good news, everyone!

The UN Human Rights Council Social Forum springs into life in Geneva, Switzerland. Focusing on science and technology, the post pandemic recovery, and (crucially to current situation) the promotion of human rights.

A chance for good will and common sense to shine a light in the growing darkness.

... and then you remember who chairs the council, and reality slaps you in the face and kicks you in the bollocks

[Jamiet99uk]

The whole idea of the UN is that all nations should participate.

Do you object to this basic notion?

[Octavious]

The whole idea of the UN is that all nations should participate.

Do you object to this basic notion?

All nations should participate, but leadership roles should be limited to nations that can demonstrate a basic level of suitability and competence

Do you object to this basic notion?

[Jamiet99uk]

Iran's politics are somewhat disagreeable. In particular I am not a fan of theocracies in general.

I am interested in your concept of countries having to be "competent".

On that basis would you agree that during the periods that Boris Johnson, and then Liz Truss, were Prime Minister, the UK should have been removed from leadership roles on any UN forums? Our leadership was embarrassingly incompetent at that time.

[orathaic]

The whole idea of the UN is that all nations should participate.

Do you object to this basic notion?

All nations should participate, but leadership roles should be limited to nations that can demonstrate a basic level of suitability and competence

Do you object to this basic notion?

I object to the (very colonialism) notion that what we say should be used to determine the suitability and competence.

Sure the reason Palestine and Israel are in their current situation is because they were not deemed competent to rule themselves, and the British was given a mandate to run Palestine as a colony (by the league of nations) up until 1948?

[Octavious]

The whole idea of the UN is that all nations should participate.

Do you object to this basic notion?

All nations should participate, but leadership roles should be limited to nations that can demonstrate a basic level of suitability and competence

Do you object to this basic notion?

I object to the (very colonialism) notion that what we say should be used to determine the suitability and competence.

Sure the reason Palestine and Israel are in their current situation is because they were not deemed competent to rule themselves, and the British was given a mandate to run Palestine as a colony (by the league of nations) up until 1948?

Are you of the opinion, then, that Iran has a better grasp of what human rights should be than you do?

[Octavious]

Iran's politics are somewhat disagreeable. In particular I am not a fan of theocracies in general.

I am interested in your concept of countries having to be "competent".

On that basis would you agree that during the periods that Boris Johnson, and then Liz Truss, were Prime Minister, the UK should have been removed from leadership roles on any UN forums? Our leadership was embarrassingly incompetent at that time.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. Nations chairing the Security Council should have militaries capable of providing security, nations chairing the Economic and Social Council should have functional economies, and nations chairing the Human Rights Council shouldn't have a list of serious human rights violations as long as your arm. Personal opinions of particular leaders is an irrelevance.

If you disagree with any of those measures of competence please feel free to explain why

[Jamiet99uk]

Sure the reason Palestine and Israel are in their current situation is because they were not deemed competent to rule themselves, and the British was given a mandate to run Palestine as a colony (by the league of nations) up until 1948?

This is a big part of the history, you're right.

[Jamiet99uk]

Iran's politics are somewhat disagreeable. In particular I am not a fan of theocracies in general.

I am interested in your concept of countries having to be "competent".

On that basis would you agree that during the periods that Boris Johnson, and then Liz Truss, were Prime Minister, the UK should have been removed from leadership roles on any UN forums? Our leadership was embarrassingly incompetent at that time.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. Nations chairing the Security Council should have militaries capable of providing security, nations chairing the Economic and Social Council should have functional economies, and nations chairing the Human Rights Council shouldn't have a list of serious human rights violations as long as your arm. Personal opinions of particular leaders is an irrelevance.

If you disagree with any of those measures of competence please feel free to explain why

As a technical clarification, the Chair of the Human Rights Council is currently from the Czech Republic. An Iranian only chairs this year's Social Forum, a once-a-year sub-forum of the Human Rights Council.

So, anyway, it is your view that Iran (the example you have chosen to make reference to) would be competent to chair the Economic and Social Council?

However you believe that the following countries are examples of countries who should not chair the Human Rights Council of any of it's sub-forums:

- Israel
- Iran
- Belarus
- Saudi Arabia
- China
- Russia
- Burundi
- Bahrain

....am I right?

[Octavious]

I am delighted to confirm, Jamie, that you have indeed grasped the fundamentals of my position. None of the aforementioned nations could perform a leadership role with the human rights council without causing a great deal of justified anger from other nations and a sense of despair from supporters of human rights across the globe.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am delighted to confirm, Jamie, that you have indeed grasped the fundamentals of my position. None of the aforementioned nations could perform a leadership role with the human rights council without causing a great deal of justified anger from other nations and a sense of despair from supporters of human rights across the globe.

Do you know how the chairs of UN committees and forums are selected?

[CaptainFritz28]

Sure the reason Palestine and Israel are in their current situation is because they were not deemed competent to rule themselves, and the British was given a mandate to run Palestine as a colony (by the league of nations) up until 1948?

This is a big part of the history, you're right.

Almost as if I brought it up on at least two occasions for it to go unnoticed...

[Octavious]

I am delighted to confirm, Jamie, that you have indeed grasped the fundamentals of my position. None of the aforementioned nations could perform a leadership role with the human rights council without causing a great deal of justified anger from other nations and a sense of despair from supporters of human rights across the globe.

Do you know how the chairs of UN committees and forums are selected?

It's not exactly a process that's particularly opaque, but I believe that the President selects the nation from a shortlist drawn up from a regional block. But I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant