Israel, Palestine and Iran (and Lebanon)

[Jareth]

For anyone with out of date tech who can't, or won't watch videos - Baroness Warsi's statement on question time talking about what Netanyahu said. 

I think at the moment what we don't have in Palestine between Hamas and Netanyahu is that either partner is a partner for peace. I want to read something to you, this quote, "anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support the bolstering of Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza, from the Palestinians in the West Bank." 

I can be simple best of times but this implicitly puts the leader of Israel in the picture for financing the terrorists that just committed the most appalling crimes in Israel. Even accounting for the fact that Israel elected a far right government, Netanyahu is surely toast when it comes to public reaction.  

Edited October 27, 2023 by Jareth

[magnkarl]

Worth a watch, discusses the countries and situations around Palestine and how Iran\USA will likely react.

[Jareth]

The thing is, we all sit there consulting our phones and most times we can just ignore them. What Hamas did was so disgusting and chaotic that to even know what they did is crippling. I can’t look at my son knowing that he is so lucky not to have been one of those boys who got ended so brutally. You have to know why this happened. Netanyahu 

[chrisp65]

There were questions earlier in the thread when it was suggested Hamas were just as bad as the Israeli government and the Israeli government was just as bad as Hamas.

As a quick vox pop, anybody still got one side or the other as the moral superior?

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

I have a thing that's confusing me.

The UN are begging for fuel to be allowed into Gaza (they're begging for lots of things, but fuel seems to be one that's not being permitted, rather than just not getting in), and they've made repeated pleas to Israel to allow some fuel through to power hospitals and allow relief trucks to reach the areas where they're needed. 

Israel have pointed out that they believe that Hamas have fuel, and in that quaintly disgusting way they do have suggested on Twitter (you can call it X if you like) that the UN should go and ask Hamas if they can have some and included a tweet that shows an aerial photograph of what they say is half a million litres of fuel being stored in tanks by Hamas within Gaza.

You know all that though.

What I can't understand is that Israel have dropped over 14,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza in the last three weeks, an explosive force equal to that of Hiroshima, all, as we're occasionally reminded, delivered with the laser like accuracy which has limited civilian deaths to only 7,000 or so.

Now, given that Israel says that Gaza can't have fuel because it has military uses, and given that they believe Hamas has 500,000 litres of fuel in tanks, out in the open, which they aren't sharing with the general population, and you'd therefore assume is for those military uses - why has a nation that's hit a couple of thousand strategic targets decided that this one, the one that's all the fuel in Gaza, the one that's being used for military purposes, doesn't merit the attention of a bomb or a missile?

That makes no sense - when you're regularly killing a couple of dozen people to get one bloke with a rifle - not bombing a massive fuel depot being used to power your enemy, in an area where you have complete aerial control, is quite frankly, just bizarre.

Any ideas?

[sne]

There is always the chance that Israel (along with Hamas, and everyone else involved) is not entirely truthful.

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a thing that's confusing me.

The UN are begging for fuel to be allowed into Gaza (they're begging for lots of things, but fuel seems to be one that's not being permitted, rather than just not getting in), and they've made repeated pleas to Israel to allow some fuel through to power hospitals and allow relief trucks to reach the areas where they're needed. 

Israel have pointed out that they believe that Hamas have fuel, and in that quaintly disgusting way they do have suggested on Twitter (you can call it X if you like) that the UN should go and ask Hamas if they can have some and included a tweet that shows an aerial photograph of what they say is half a million litres of fuel being stored in tanks by Hamas within Gaza.

You know all that though.

What I can't understand is that Israel have dropped over 14,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza in the last three weeks, an explosive force equal to that of Hiroshima, all, as we're occasionally reminded, delivered with the laser like accuracy which has limited civilian deaths to only 7,000 or so.

Now, given that Israel says that Gaza can't have fuel because it has military uses, and given that they believe Hamas has 500,000 litres of fuel in tanks, out in the open, which they aren't sharing with the general population, and you'd therefore assume is for those military uses - why has a nation that's hit a couple of thousand of strategic targets decided that this one, the one that's all the fuel in Gaza, the one that's being used for military purposes, doesn't merit the attention of a bomb of a missile?

That makes no sense - when you're regularly killing a couple of dozen people to get one bloke with a rifle - not bombing a massive fuel depot being used to power your enemy, in an area where you have complete aerial control, is quite frankly, just bizarre.

Any ideas?

 

Stop with the jabber and choose a team.

You’re not supposed to do any critical thinking. Personally I was just impressed that from an aerial photo you could tell how many litres of fuel were in a tank that didn’t have a glass lid.

Both as bad as each other. I can’t work out what they get from it, but there’s clearly a buzz for these people.

[Chindie]

They don't actually think that the fuel is there but it's useful as a narrative device to deflect the question and by not attacking it it also makes them look better and gives them a propaganda attack line.

[VILLAMARV]

5 hours ago, Jareth said:

For anyone with out of date tech who can't, or won't watch videos - Baroness Warsi's statement on question time talking about what Netanyahu said. 

I think at the moment what we don't have in Palestine between Hamas and Netanyahu is that either partner is a partner for peace. I want to read something to you, this quote, "anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support the bolstering of Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza, from the Palestinians in the West Bank." 

I can be simple best of times but this implicitly puts the leader of Israel in the picture for financing the terrorists that just committed the most appalling crimes in Israel. Even accounting for the fact that Israel elected a far right government, Netanyahu is surely toast when it comes to public reaction.  

I've no idea if your commentary is true but thanks for the quote. I'll not be watching QT or the Beeb etc so it would have slipped by.

Quite a statement from a sitting member of the Lords - IIRC she resigned from the government because of the Gaza/Israel situation.

[VILLAMARV]

checked myself and yep

Quote

On 5 August 2014, Warsi resigned from the Government citing concerns that she was no longer able to support the Cameron Government's policy on the escalation of violence in the Israel–Gaza conflict, describing the Government's position as "morally indefensible".After resigning she called for an arms embargo against Israel.

wiki

[one_ian_taylor]

32 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a thing that's confusing me.

The UN are begging for fuel to be allowed into Gaza (they're begging for lots of things, but fuel seems to be one that's not being permitted, rather than just not getting in), and they've made repeated pleas to Israel to allow some fuel through to power hospitals and allow relief trucks to reach the areas where they're needed. 

Israel have pointed out that they believe that Hamas have fuel, and in that quaintly disgusting way they do have suggested on Twitter (you can call it X if you like) that the UN should go and ask Hamas if they can have some and included a tweet that shows an aerial photograph of what they say is half a million litres of fuel being stored in tanks by Hamas within Gaza.

You know all that though.

What I can't understand is that Israel have dropped over 14,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza in the last three weeks, an explosive force equal to that of Hiroshima, all, as we're occasionally reminded, delivered with the laser like accuracy which has limited civilian deaths to only 7,000 or so.

Now, given that Israel says that Gaza can't have fuel because it has military uses, and given that they believe Hamas has 500,000 litres of fuel in tanks, out in the open, which they aren't sharing with the general population, and you'd therefore assume is for those military uses - why has a nation that's hit a couple of thousand of strategic targets decided that this one, the one that's all the fuel in Gaza, the one that's being used for military purposes, doesn't merit the attention of a bomb of a missile?

That makes no sense - when you're regularly killing a couple of dozen people to get one bloke with a rifle - not bombing a massive fuel depot being used to power your enemy, in an area where you have complete aerial control, is quite frankly, just bizarre.

Any ideas?

Crazy as it might seem, maybe the IDF sees it as too  great a risk because of the  potential damage? 

[DJBOB]

56 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a thing that's confusing me.

The UN are begging for fuel to be allowed into Gaza (they're begging for lots of things, but fuel seems to be one that's not being permitted, rather than just not getting in), and they've made repeated pleas to Israel to allow some fuel through to power hospitals and allow relief trucks to reach the areas where they're needed. 

Israel have pointed out that they believe that Hamas have fuel, and in that quaintly disgusting way they do have suggested on Twitter (you can call it X if you like) that the UN should go and ask Hamas if they can have some and included a tweet that shows an aerial photograph of what they say is half a million litres of fuel being stored in tanks by Hamas within Gaza.

You know all that though.

What I can't understand is that Israel have dropped over 14,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza in the last three weeks, an explosive force equal to that of Hiroshima, all, as we're occasionally reminded, delivered with the laser like accuracy which has limited civilian deaths to only 7,000 or so.

Now, given that Israel says that Gaza can't have fuel because it has military uses, and given that they believe Hamas has 500,000 litres of fuel in tanks, out in the open, which they aren't sharing with the general population, and you'd therefore assume is for those military uses - why has a nation that's hit a couple of thousand of strategic targets decided that this one, the one that's all the fuel in Gaza, the one that's being used for military purposes, doesn't merit the attention of a bomb of a missile?

That makes no sense - when you're regularly killing a couple of dozen people to get one bloke with a rifle - not bombing a massive fuel depot being used to power your enemy, in an area where you have complete aerial control, is quite frankly, just bizarre.

Any ideas?

If you were to take Israel for your word (which you shouldn't), then they are choosing to bomb Hamas targets and not the fuel as to prove that Hamas can give away the fuel any time they want and they are targeting Hamas and not the Palestinian infrastructure.

I think the most likely answer is that Israel are not allowing fuel through with the belief that it will either be stolen or repurposed by Hamas and not to hospitals. It's a shit situation because hospitals need fuel, civilians need fuel, but I think you'd have to have a very generous view of Hamas that they wouldn't try to at least take the fuel if it were through. The interconnectedness of Hamas/Gaza/civilians are not the civilians fault, but from a purely military perspective, Israel should not give them fuel.

From a humanitarian perspective, just more death for civilians.

[chrisp65]

31 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Crazy as it might seem, maybe the IDF sees it as too  great a risk because of the  potential damage? 

 

I’m sceptical on that, have to be honest.

 

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Crazy as it might seem, maybe the IDF sees it as too  great a risk because of the  potential damage? 

Sort of but slightly nuanced, Israel understands the political fall out of blowing up fuel storage and the devastatingly unpredictable results that may occur might not sit well with the governments who are supporting them.

[one_ian_taylor]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sort of but slightly nuanced, Israel understands the political fall out of blowing up fuel storage and the devastatingly unpredictable results that may occur might not sit well with the governments who are supporting them.

Well, that's kind of what I meant. 

[blandy]

19 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I have a thing that's confusing me.

The UN are begging for fuel to be allowed into Gaza... and they've made repeated pleas to Israel to allow some fuel through to power hospitals and allow relief trucks to reach the areas where they're needed. 

Israel have pointed out that they believe that Hamas have fuel, ... the UN should go and ask Hamas if they can have some and included a tweet that shows an aerial photograph of what they say is half a million litres of fuel being stored in tanks by Hamas within Gaza.

... Israel have dropped over 14,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza in the last three weeks, an explosive force equal to that of Hiroshima, all, as we're occasionally reminded, delivered with the laser like accuracy which has limited civilian deaths to only 7,000 or so.

Now, given that Israel says that Gaza can't have fuel because it has military uses, and given that they believe Hamas has 500,000 litres of fuel in tanks, out in the open, which they aren't sharing with the general population, and you'd therefore assume is for those military uses - why has a nation that's hit a couple of thousand of strategic targets decided that this one, the one that's all the fuel in Gaza, the one that's being used for military purposes, doesn't merit the attention of a bomb of a missile?

That makes no sense - when you're regularly killing a couple of dozen people to get one bloke with a rifle - not bombing a massive fuel depot being used to power your enemy, in an area where you have complete aerial control, is quite frankly, just bizarre.

Any ideas?

I've a couple of questions/comments.

First one - 7000 dead people. I'm not playing silly buggers here, or trivialising even one death, but there's propaganda at play. Who says 7000 dead? is it Hamas, perhaps? I mean who's actually counting? It's awful, whether it's 7, 70 or 7000. But we don't know (and I don't trust) the figures given. Same as with the 500 killed in a hospital thing. It's just a number put out there by someone. Which isn't in any way to minimise the appalling brutality of what Hamas and Israel have done so far.

500,000 litres of fuel, if hit by a bomb  - that would probably do more damage than all the other bombing put together. Where exactly is it. Who is nearby? what is nearby? Remember about 7 or so years back that monumental explosion in Lebanon, of stored goods, which combusted and flattened the place?

I no more believe Israel than I do Hamas, by the way.

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

First one - 7000 dead people. I'm not playing silly buggers here, or trivialising even one death, but there's propaganda at play. WHo says 7000 dead? is it Hamas, perhaps? I mean who's actually counting? It's awful, whether it's 7, 70 or 7000. But we don't know (and I don't trust) the figures given. Same as with the 500 killed in a hospital thing. IT's just a number put out there by someone. Which isn't in any way to minimise the appalling brutality of what Hamas and Israel have done so far.

The WHO have come out today and given that figure - they say they've seen substantive evidence to back it up. Thinking about it though, my number is slightly misleading - it's 7,000 dead - some of those could be actual combatants.

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

500,000 litres of fuel, if hit by a bomb  - that would probably do more damage than all the other bombing put together. Where exactly is it. Who is nearby? what is nearby? Remember about 7 or so years back that monumental explosion in Lebanon, of stored goods, which combusted and flattened the place?

Looking at the IDF statement, it looks like the tanks are somewhere in the region around the Rafah crossing, and though Israel has shown no real concern about damage in Gaza - they might not be so keen to put a big hole the other side of the border into Egypt - so there's a possibility that's the reasoning. You'd think they'd have made some efforts at taking it out of action regardless.

And that explosion in Beirut was three years ago - please don't make me feel any older than I already do! 

[Chindie]

"I'm not saying the numbers matter, they don't, 1 is an awful number... But do we believe the numbers? I mean, yeah it's all bad. But when they say that number, do we really think that number is right? I mean it's awful and everything and the numbers don't matter, but that number does matter. Kinda. It doesn't. Honest. But it does..."

[OutByEaster?]

Oddly enough, the fuel tanks are on google maps - about 1.3 km North West along the wall from the Rafah crossing. 

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

"I'm not saying the numbers matter, they don't, 1 is an awful number... But do we believe the numbers? I mean, yeah it's all bad. But when they say that number, do we really think that number is right? I mean it's awful and everything and the numbers don't matter, but that number does matter. Kinda. It doesn't. Honest. But it does..."

No, not that, in the slightest.

We are being told, through social media, propaganda and through the MSM, a load of stuff which is largely unverifiable, and some which is extremely likely to be false. This is happening from both sides and more. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask where the figure of 7000 came from, does it? I mean I think there's almost no media people in Gaza, so "reports" of casualties, which are clearly going to be high, given the images of devastation and destruction Israel has wreaked are likely to be based on ...what? approximations? messages or phone calls from inside Gaza to the UN or WHO outside Gaza, or relayed to them via Doctors phoning or texting or messaging contacts outside who then pass on the figures?

I bet no one knows how many people have actually been killed, or whether they're fighters, or mostly innocents. We do know there's terrible death and suffering in large quantity.

As people have posted - there's a tendency for something to get floated, to pop out of somewhere and then it takes a hold as "fact" in our media and understanding, when it's actually unverified. Israel killed 500 in a hospital - half way round the world, then Israel says "it was them, not us" and then someone else says (as not far above these posts) actually, the Israel "explanation" is erroneous too...