this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)

News

51 readers
1 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 2 years ago
14
‘My children were saying: Let them just kill us’: British doctor trapped in Gaza with family calls for ceasefire (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/news@kbin.social
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The doctor, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted by the Israelis, arrived in Gaza with his wife and three teenage children three days before Hamas launched its murderous assault on 7 October, in which it killed about 1,300 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages.

Speaking hours before the Israelis imposed a communications blackout on Gaza on Friday, the doctor said that his and many other children who were all living in the same house had become so traumatised and terrified at night that they talked about wanting to be hit and killed by the next strike rather than have to wait until morning for the bombing to die down.

all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The NHS doctor compared the reactions of UK leaders to atrocities committed by Hamas with those after the IRA killed innocent people during the Troubles of the 1970s and 80s.

He asked why it was that politicians would never have responded to the IRA attacks by bombing civilian areas of Belfast, while they were prepared to see Gaza attacked. “[You cannot] imagine the British leaders saying: ‘The IRA is a terrorist organisation so we are going to kill all these people, all these civilians.’ I think this is really outrageous [how they can take a different view towards those in Gaza]. I don’t understand how they allow this to happen.”

Western countries are permitting genocide because it is easier and more convenient for them than to take a stand against a traditional ally. There's a lot of cowardice in politics right now.

[–] 0x815@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

@floofloof

Western countries are permitting genocide because it is easier and more convenient for them than to take a stand against a traditional ally. There's a lot of cowardice in politics right now.

This is not limited to Western countries as we can see in China, Russia, and other non-Western countries. There's a lot of cowardice in politics everywhere.

Addition - Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal told Egyptian TV:

The Russians told us what we did on October 7th will be learned a lot in their military academies. This benefits the Russians because it diverts US attention from Ukraine. The Chinese are considering similar action against Taiwan."

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

why it was that politicians would never have responded to the IRA attacks by bombing civilian areas of Belfast,

Belfast was part of the UK during the troubles, Gaza is an independent territory with its own government and leadership. Not really comparable.
Hamas's attacks were so atrocious that even Sinn Fein leadership denounced them.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Independent", but occupied, being actively settled, and under a blockade managed by a hostile nation that has a manifest destiny encompassing all of its territories and none of its people.

Literally no one is defending the Hamas attacks as just or righteous. It's a total red herring pointing it out. And it's just a big pile of shit that anyone who says anything on the issue needs to hedge everything they say with the obvious fact that they don't condone violent terrorism. It was violent terrorism. No reasonable person is in favor of violent terrorism.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

"Independent", but occupied, being actively settled

Blockaded, not occupied. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and dismantled all their settlements there in 2005.

managed by a hostile nation that has a manifest destiny encompassing all of its territories and none of its people.

Gee, why wouldn't they want to share real estate with people who have literally been trying to murder them all for the last century, refuse to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace, and call for their genocide? It's a mystery. They must be jerks.

Literally no one is defending the Hamas attacks as just or righteous.

Literally many people have been defending Hamas, threads about this issue are full of people simping for them and justifying their terror attacks. Some Harvard students famously got in hot water for doing so very recently.

It's a total red herring pointing it out.

Hamas' attack is the casus belli for this war. Referring to it as such is acknowledging reality/causality, not misdirection.

And it's just a big pile of shit that anyone who says anything on the issue needs to hedge everything they say with the obvious fact that they don't condone violent terrorism. It was violent terrorism. No reasonable person is in favor of violent terrorism.

And yet reprisals against this "violent terrorism," launched by a hostile government from a territory they control, is portrayed as an act of genocide by many. Just because the population in this territory happens to be homogenous and the terrorist leadership hides among civilians and children, doesn't make this any less an act of self-defense.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You have two chaotic evil "leaderships" here -- Hamas and the far right Israeli government -- blowing up innocent civilians and blaming the other side for forcing their hands.

We all know what the long-term outcome will be. Palestine will eventually cease to be. There's no other way this is going can play out.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I can see how one could portray either or both as evil. There's certainly a lot of history to cite as evidence on both sides.

The heart of the matter as I see it is the realpolitik situation. One side has all the cards, and other side refuses to fold. Hamas/Palestine has no path to peace that does not involve making significant concessions and pacifying themselves. They cannot hope to win militarily, and have tried unsuccessfully to wage war for the last century or so, losing spectacularly with every attempt. The alternative is to keep poking the bear until they are in fact left with nothing. These attacks might feel cathartic to those who harbor rage at the other side but they are counterproductive to their goals. Thanks to this most recent massacre, Israel has a blank check right now to do whatever they believe is nessicary to keep themselves safe.

When I imagine myself in each actor's position, there are but a few viable options open to each. Israel must respond in a severe heavy-handed way if they are to dissuade any further attacks and keep their people safe. They tried the carrot when they unilaterally withdrew, negotiated, and gave Gazans more economic opportunity. That led to this massacre, so now they are trying the stick. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for their safety. Hamas can either stay belligerent and be responsible for more deaths and destruction of their infrastructure, and probably annexation of their remaining lands, or acknowledge that the only viable path to peace is surrender, pacification, and accepting peace terms they probably won't like.

[–] pragmakist@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Israel must respond in a severe heavy-handed way if they are to dissuade any further attacks and keep their people safe"

This newer works!

Simple as that. Look at the evidence, please. This always leads to further violence, and ultimately mass slaugther.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Deterrence via a show of overwhelming force never works? I strongly disagree, historically it has prevented significant numbers of wars and attacks, and I suspect it is the reason why in recent decades Israel has only been attacked via guerilla actions and not openly by hostile neighboring states. Pax Americana would not be possible if this didn't work.

Will it work in this instance? Hard to say, Palestinian reprisals seem hard to deter given that they persist despite how many times they have been overwhelmingly defeated or how many carrots and sticks Israel provides. I think this time the goals might be different though, I would not be surprised at all if they level the north of Gaza and move the wall after they've taken out Hamas targets there.

The latest news about Israel's intentions in Gaza seems unusual but not very specific:

"The third phase will require the removal of Israel’s responsibility for life in the Gaza strip, and the establishment of a new security reality for the citizens of Israel," the minister said, according to a statement from his office.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-aims-end-its-responsibility-gaza-strip-minister-2023-10-20/

I wonder what it means?

[–] pragmakist@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Deterrence and prevention are different from post facto responce, and show of force is different from application of force.

Consider what went wrong in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vitenam. Consider how many Indian lives it took to end the Indian wars the hard way. Consider the Black and Tans in Ireland. Consider what happened when the Nazis slaugthered whole villages. Consider the Sovietunion in that war (27 million lost out of a total population of 200 million)

Now find the cases, please, where actually sending the troops in helped in something like this.

And then take note of how limited the deployment were, or how special the circumstances.

[–] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Deterrence and prevention are different from post facto responce

Presumably Hamas was not completely finished with their efforts after October 7th.

[–] 0x815@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

British Satirical magazine Private Eye has a controversial cover