Netanyahu cannot let the war end

Firstly, the 'inequality in fighting ability' is caused by the absurd insistence (by people like yourself) that one side be allowed to declare and engage in a war of annihilation, while the other side is prevented,, by bizarre special ethical claims, from pursuing this conflict to a rational conclusion (ie surrender). the consequence is the bizarre circumstance of a continuous declaration of war from a side that would be vanquished in five minutes if a war with them was actually pursued. This is the Monty Python pantomime sketch your idiocy created.

Secondly, I'm making no claims at all about the appropriateness of allied actions in ww2, I am rather appealing to you to try your best to make an even-handed and flat comparison between that an Israeli actions. If Israel were to flood an entire section of Gaza to pursue its aims, would you see that as dramatic escalation in terms of civilian risk or a dramatic de-escalation? Another example - If Israel were create a 'firestorm' in Gaza by carpet bombing, would you (again) see as this as more careful than their current tactics?

Once again - the Israelis are not shooting Palestinian non-combatant children deliberately as a matter of official policy and so any such actions would be considered murder by the Israeli government. This is in stark contrast to the Gazan authorities who do not consider burning jews on bonfires to be a crime.

So far, you have managed to carefully avoid my central point - but this wont last.

Time and again your argument fails on one thing, your definition of who the enemies are. They are a terrorist group, not the peoples of Gaza. 

Do you believe Israel should be allowed shoot missiles into Cambridge UK because there may be a Hamas leader hiding there? OK to drive military vehicles down Regent Street shooting anyone they see because they are sure one of them is a member of Hezbollah?

Your comparison between WW2 and Gaza is also failing, because it relies on you ignoring the disparity in ability to fight back. We were fighting for our existence against Germany, Israel is not fighting for its existence against Gaza. 
When Germany no longer posed a threat to our existence we did not continue driving through the streets of Hamburg or Berlin shooting civilians just in case some were Nazi's. 

Instead we won over the hearts of Germans by helping them recover from the effects of war. Sure a few Nazi's got away and neo Nazi's still exist, they re-emerged in Serbia a while back and we had to subdue them again, just like Hamas they never go away, difference is they have little support because of our actions at the end of the war. 

You think the Geneva convention is a leftie weakness and the UN a bunch of hand wringers. You are so wrong, they are the result of intelligent people who looked at our endless wars driven by the way the losers were treated and said we have to break the cycle and its not done by shooting children. 

I'll deal with your points one at a time and try my best again to illustrate why they are ludicrous ( in fact, sometimes comical)

Zany, i have arranged my replies in separate paragraphs each dealing with one of your points. Please, please, please (as a favour to me) do not separate out my reply into separate quotes. Doing this makes your posts almost impossible to reply to. We only have three points so there is no reason this needs to expand further.

Your first point is the issue of due care to avoid civilian casualties re-branded as 'definition of the enemy'. This point was dealt with a couple of posts ago when i highlighted the ludicrous situations that could be a consequence of applying your standard of 'duty of care' For instance, a situation in which Nazi Germany's territory and regime remain intact after ww2 because it is calculated that invading Germany and destroying the Nazi regime would necessarily involve 'too many' German civilian casualties. However this only deals quantitatively with your ludicrous standard, the killing blow came when i pointed out that your argument fails qualitatively as well - ie an extra significant restriction that applies only to enemies of dictatorships, translates to an advantage to dictatorships.  As it stands, your standard and rationale means that democracies are not allowed to properly defeat dictatorships. If we do end up in a conflict with Russia, I will be interested to hear your take on how the UK should pursue this war without significantly risking Russian civilian casualties.

Your second point has already been dealt with numerous times.
The reason Israel does not feel the need to shoot missiles into Cambridge to kill terrorists is because Israel's diplomatic relationship with the UK that allows Israel to get a satisfactory redress without invading or attacking the UK itself. If you did not understand this part of my earlier point, you do not understand a significant fraction of my position. Your scenario raises an interesting question though. If Israel were firing rockets into Cambridge and the UK couldn't get the Israeli government to stop it or desist, I would surmise that more or less a state of war would exist between Israel and the UK. I would not be surprised (practical factors aside) if the UK bombed or invaded Israel until this stopped. I would also not be surprised if such an action resulted in large numbers of Israeli civilian casualties. Presumably, you would argue ferociously that no such action should be contemplated because of the risk to Israeli civilians who may not be directly involved in firing rockets?

Your third point is perhaps the daftest of the three. It amounts to special rule that you should only fight strong enemies and never enemies you can handily defeat - but the very nature of war is that it can only be won by being stronger than the enemy. Presumably, if an enemy becomes weak during conflict, its enemies are then ethically bound to stop fighting it until it regains enough strength to be worthy again? This is the most comical position you hold.

I have a question related loosely to your third and first point
Given Hamas is small minority in Gaza and only amounts to two-bit criminal organisation, rather than a proper worthy foe, would you support an internationally led policing effort to invade Gaza and arrest /execute the members of Hamas? If not, why not? 

1, Yet it was achieved. We defeated the Nazi's without killing obscene numbers of civilians and we won the German people over. 
2, I've no idea how you reach such a conclusion.
3,OK replace Cambridge with Peking and actually answer the question rather than dodge it. If the UK refused to hand over suspected terrorists to Israel should they then be allowed shoot missiles into Cambridge UK because there may be a Hamas leader hiding there? OK to drive military vehicles down Regent Street shooting anyone they see because they are sure one of them is a member of Hezbollah?
4, The uk would attack military bases to prevent rockets being fired, it might even send in troops but in both cases it would take great care to avoid civilian casualties. 
5, No, it points to proportional measures. All fighting is done this way except by Israel. 
6, Yes certainly assuming Israel would allow it. 

I refer to the first post and the title of this Discussion: The Israeli coalition / war cabinet currently in power is described by Israel's detractors and pro Palestinian Arabs, as: "hard right" / "far right". In my personal view, the  "hard right" / "far right" labels do not fit politicians who simply wish to defend their country, taking the sort of action than any other country would take in similar circumstances. 

Having regard to the Discussion title, a word therefore on the charges against Benjamin Netanyahu:

Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel faces trial on what are arguably now, three elderly-charges (investigation from 2016, charges in 2019), concerning allegations of "corruption". To date, he has not been convicted of any of these allegations. While corruption is wrong and in normal circumstances requires punishment, these particular charges have now been in the Israeli legal system too long, such that they should now be cancelled and thus accordingly the trials. In general such cases, when matters remain in such delay, this can threaten the quality of evidence and therefore the possibility of being able to have a fair trial.

Would doing this bring the Israeli justice system into disrepute?
No. Quite the opposite because the charges have been around now for a long time, such that proceeding any further with them is what would in my personal opinion, tend to cause such disrepute.

It may well be that some of the evidence in this matter has already been given in court, but it is possible that evidence given too long after the events to which it relates may not constitute the best evidence, thus leading to an unfair trial. Further, if the defendant has yet to give evidence, their recollection so long after the events in question may suffer, leading to their lawyers having to take this into account when advising their client whether to give evidence, and therefore to an unfair trial. In this particular case the defendant has also had a lot on their mind, during their exemplary leadership in defending the country.

Dragging the matter out as far is is has now been, may also amount to psychological harm upon the defendant, a man who has a heart condition requiring a pacemaker.

Therefore such a long delay can possibly bring a judicial system into disrepute, and thus proceeding any further with such trials may not be in the public interest.

Has P.M. Netanyahu caused this delay?
No. The delays have been substantially caused by enemy action against Israel, during which time P.M. Netanyahu has shown exemplary leadership, resisting international pressure to desist from military action against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians. Pressure to desist upon Israel is by the Hamas-allied United Nations, and by many world leaders who put their personal political ambitions first while paying lip-service to Israel's security and its right to defend and deter further attack from the Palestinian Arabs.

If the trials result in any conviction, the Israeli President should, in my personal opinion, consider a pardon, while the court should consider not imposing any punishment. In the U.K. this is known as an "absolute discharge".


A word about the weekly protests in Israel connected with the families of the hostages griped by the Palestinian Arab-Hamas. 

Israeli citizens number nearly 10 million, compared with each Saturday claims that "hundreds of thousands" of people protest in Israel demanding the Israeli government enter into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas for the return of the Israeli hostages. Their anger incessantly implying perversely, that the Israeli government is responsible rather than Hamas.

Many are also shown on Media News coverage with banners reading "Crime Minister", thus denying to the Israeli Prime Minister the right they would claim for themselves, of being innocent until proven guilty.

While the plight of the hostages is clear, it is also arguable that this nevertheless must take second place against preventing what happened to them, from happening to other Israeli families in the future. The protesters serve, as manipulated by Hamas and as the protesters must well know, the interests of Hamas; thus serving the enemy in time of war. The protesters should be ashamed since they put their personal tragedies above the safety of the country, above the safety of other Israeli families in the future, and above the morale of the IDF.

The understandable plight of the families of the hostages has been hijacked by those who seek to protect Hamas and seek the destruction of Israel. 

The maps shown by contributor "Zany" normally appear with the title: "Shrinking Palestine", and are misleading and incorrect, because there has never been any indigenous "Palestine" / Arab sovereign state in the land of Israel. 


Contributor "Zany" also wrote at Sep 8, 2024 at 8:24pm:
'So ignore the 1945 map and look at more recent times..':
From 1922 to 1948 the United Nations awarded a Mandate to Great Britain. The Roman rename or attempted rename, of the land of Israel to "Palestine" which means Philistine and is called that (Filistine) in Arabic, was resurrected for the British Mandate.
Under the British Mandate both Jews and Arabs who obtained citizenship became "Palestinian".
This nationality ceased with the end of the British Mandate in1948. 
British Mandate Palestine was not any indigenous state; it was rule by a foreign imperial power.
The name "Palestine" has been used politically in history only twice, by the Romans and by the British. 

The following image explains why the maps linked by contributor "Zany" are wrong:

Let’s briefly take a look at the “recent” history:
[Sorry for the delay - This is the second time I'm drafting this as the first one "disappeared" - no doubt my fault! If one tries to display an image in a post and only wants to insert the URL and not "Drag" a file in, sometimes the "Drag" screen pops up anyway. Then, if you click the "Back" button on the Web Browser, ALL of the draft post is lost. What one instead needs to do, is to click the "X" on the "Drag" screen to safely close it! - Well, now I know!]

The Romans attempted to rename the land of Israel, “Palestine” which means Philistine (referring to a much smaller area of the land of the by then, defunct Philistines), and which is pronounced Philistine (Filistine) in Arabic: 
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bar_Kochba
Once on the webpage search for the text (without the quotes) “In the aftermath of the war". 

The Ottoman Empire did not call their occupation of the land of Israel “Palestine”, but Ottoman-occupied Israel was within the Ottoman province of “Syria”: 
Image: List of Ottoman Turkish provinces called “vilayets”, which the reader can see includes “Syria”:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Table_of_Ottoman_Administrative_Divisions_1905_%28Tableau_des_circonscriptions_administratives%29.png

The name “Palestine” was used politically only twice: By the Romans and later it was resurrected for the Mandate awarded to Great Britain; both of these being foreign imperial powers:  
www.britannica.com/place/Palestine
Once on the webpage search for the text (without the quotes): "After the Crusades the name remained"

There are some old maps entitled “Palestine”, but if you look on the map itself the name “Palestine” does not appear and instead you see the correct names “Judah” and “Samaria”:
Example:
legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/palaestina_1849.jpg

The British Mandate 1922 to 1948 (British Mandate Palestine) was rule by a foreign imperial power.

Under the British Mandate both Arabs and Jews could become “Palestinian” citizens, a citizenship which ended with the end of the British Mandate in 1948: 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians
Once on the webpage search for the text (without the quotes): "During the Mandatory Palestine period"

The United Nations passed a proposed Partition Plan under resolution 181 (attempt at a two-state solution) in 1947:
documents.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/nr0/038/88/pdf/nr003888.pdf
This was accepted by the then Jewish Community but it takes both parties to form any agreement. The Palestinian Arabs started a civil war which intensified 1947 to 1948 to: Oppose the U.N. Partition Plan, take ALL the land, and expel or murder the Jews.
Surrounding Arab states invaded to militarily support the Palestinian Arab aims.
www.britannica.com/event/1948-Arab-Israeli-War

The consequential Jewish defense resulted in the Re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty - Israel,
while at the same time Egypt illegally-occupied Gaza, and Transjordan (since Jordan) illegally-occupied Judah and Samaria (from which time it became wrongly-known as “West Bank, the”), and Transjordan also illegally-occupied East Jerusalem from which they expelled the Jews:
(See previous Link.)

In 1967 Israel recovered its ancestral lands of: Gaza, Judah and Samaria (“West Bank”), and East Jerusalem: 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War 

There has never been any indigenous “Palestine” / Arab sovereign state in the land of Israel upon which the Palestinian Arabs could base any claim to any part of Israel.
Israel is Re-established within the Jewish ancestral-homeland as can be seen from a map of the post-Biblical Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom - see below.

Internationally-recognised history shows that the last indigenous sovereign state in the land of Israel (Roman-imposed name “Palestine”), prior to the
RE-establishment of Israel in 1948, was the post-Biblical Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom. It included what is now referred to as the “West Bank”, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Capital (what is now East) Jerusalem / “Old City”; between 110 BCE / 754 BH and 63 BCE / 706 BH - Map: 
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Hasmonean_kingdom.jpg