The answer to this has been there for years just the Palestinians won’t grasp it. As for your analogy Bomber Command and the YSAAF did precythat from 1940 to 45, destroying Germany to finish off the Nazis or what we did in GW 2 or Afghanistan or today in Syria.
Please tell me the difference
Equating collateral damage with deliberate terror attacks against women, children, elderly, etc. is more than a little disingenuous.
The difference is, we didn’t keep bombing the Germans after a point where we’d boxed millions of them into a tiny bit of land, removed all access to amenities, power and water.
We also didn’t tell the Germans to get out, and then attack them as they tried…
Not to mention the fact that there’s no way that a carpet bombing campaign would even be countenanced today. Comparing 1940s methods of warfare to what would be acceptable today is a nonsense.
But a lot of what you spout is nonsense.
ReD the history of Op Gommirah and similar raids, the German government didn’t want people to move out of those areas. Strange how up to lunchtime today Egypt hasn’t opened the southern border crossings but Israel Qatar and the US are asking the Egyptians to do so.
So it’s the Egyptians’ fault for not letting the Palestinians run away…?
Right black at you with the comment nonsense. Many who demonstrate for a ‘free’ Palestine are I suspect are just covering up their own prejudices.
They claimed the border last Saturday.
Most people can see that persecuting the entire population of anywhere for the actions of a proportion of them, particularly children, is wrong.
Honestly, if you were on my unit, I’d refer you to Prevent, no doubt about it. Your attitudes are dangerous.
Yeah right. My attitude is to support Israel something in a free and democratic society is valuable to preserve.
So is kidnapping children.
At this point we agree to disagree.
Prevent, to close down debate?
I can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. But I cannot support it’s methods. They’re often reprehensible, disproportionate and callous.
Let’s apply their logic to somewhere closer to home.
As I understand it, there are some parts of Liverpool where criminality is so rife and gangs are regularly obtaining weapons and attacking innocents. I suggest we therefore find which estates these people live on, wall the entire estate off, remove access to all amenities and if they even dare complain, drive an armoured brigade in. Really show them who’s boss.
What was an acceptable method of war 80 years ago doesn’t really have any impact on what is acceptable today.
In everyone of those conflicts restraint was shown, targets that could’ve been hit weren’t because of the impact on innocent people, Israel is showing none of that restraint and some people you included seem to revelling in that fact.
Exactly this, I’m pro-Israel however that doesn’t mean I wear blinkers and won’t call out what I see as wrong. It’s possible to fight a war without deliberately carrying out crimes against humanity.
To be fair if you look at UK military actions:
While talking the talk what is being done to actually assist Israel? Not much beyond not diplomatically protesting and as the body count rises that will change.
The fair and equal application of international law.
Which is designed, first and foremost, to quench my desire for vengeance.
It’s funny how this seems to be the starting point of many interviews.
Why would you not, just as you would condemn anyone killing innocent civilians.
But of course, a powerful nation state can exercise control and restraint in how it responds to prevent justice turning into vengeance.
Grounded, that’s right: the XRW aren’t well-organised enough to be a major threat as terrorists, and not politically coherent enough to be a threat to the survival of liberal democracy.
Of course, 10% of the total terrorist threat to us is still a large part, and we must guard against that. They’ve had their moments in other western democracies: notably in Oslo in 2011 and Oklahoma in 1993. In the UK, it’s more likely to be ‘angry man & van’ attacks. It’s harder to get weapons or munitions into Britain. But then as soon as we think things like that, we get a 7/7. 
The only political aim the XRW in western countries have is based upon fear of ‘the Great Replacement’ of white people by immigrants, but it doesn’t need white extremists to introduce fear of immigration into the Tory Party: Suella and Priti are daughters of immigrants themselves, and they want to cut down the numbers of people coming in.
The last time fascism was a political threat to the UK Government was from Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Behind all the scrapping with anti-fascists, the black shirts, rallies, marches and symbols was the aim of replacing the ‘Old Gang’ of members of parliament and the voting system with all the faults within with the Corporate State. Luckily for the ‘Old Gang,’ WWII started, Churchill suspended the right of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned Mosley for being a threat to national security. The BUF collapsed before it could grow to become a real threat to the British political constitution through the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun: unlike Sinn Fein or Hamas, the BUF had no terrorist element.
The XRW and its single xenophobic aim will always be with us. It’s basically extreme NIMBYism: everyone fears over-population to some degree, and everyone will have their limit of tolerance of it. How much is too much? 1,000 net immigrants in a year? 10,000? 100,000? 1 million? 10 million? Stop me when you’ve had enough. Of course it doesn’t help that the IDF have now created a million more refugees in Palestine overnight, which is the root of the problem: when there’s more push than pull with human migration. 
That’s true, but there’s a tendency to conflate support for Palestinians generally with support for the eradication of Israel, which is why people have to be careful on the nuance
That’s because the Zionist lobby have been extremely clever with their PR, managing to persuade the world that criticism of Israel as a state is akin to anti-semitism. Not even Jewish people are safe from that. My best friend was recently excluded from his synagogue and branded anti-semitic because he called for the Israeli government to stop apartheid and genocide, saying they of all people should know better.
This then means that many moderate people who get branded as extreme due to fair and legitimate comments end up going down the slippery slope to join the full on racists and hating all Jews, after all that’s what they’re accused of for saying Israel could be a bit nicer to people, so why not accept the label?
What Hamas is doing is indefensible, but so is the Israeli response.
The same applies the other way, you can’t condemn Hamas without being told that you are In favour of the Genocide of the Palestinians.
There is no nuance in the Israel/Palestinian debate it’s treated as one extreme or the other.
You also don’t see many people able to come up with a sensible military option Israel could be taking at the moment.
The suggestions are either “wipe them out no matter what the cost” or “free Palestine”.
Considering this second option is what the international community committed to being the guarantors for…
There isn’t one. Because as we learnt to our cost in NI, military intervention isn’t what beats terrorists, you defeat terrorists by making them irrelevant and removing the sympathy for the cause, and reducing their ability to recruit.
Hamas perversely probably want the Israelis to go in, because it generates sympathy for palestinians and antipathy for Israelis that they can exploit for future recruits.
And they recognise that after all this time, Israel isn’t going to do their bit, despite their obligations. Lose-lose.