Israel-Premier Tech cycling team confronted by pro-Palestine group at Tour of Britain, with more protests planned this week

Paul J wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Whilst I abhor the actions of the Israeli government, there is an uncomfortable aspect to this story, in which anything with funding from an Israeli citizen becomes somehow complicit with that policy. It's as wrong as for example, holding INEOS as a team responsible for UK government policies.

The Israeli populace overwhelmingly supports the genocide though.

Hamas, which is undoubtedly a racist organisation which also throws people off buildings for the 'crime' of homosexuality, was voted in by the majority of people in Gaza. So should all Gazans be responsible for Hamas' actions? Or is it just, you know, certain ethno-religious groups which have group culpalibility?

Incidentally, there were massive protests against the current government's policies, including on security etc, both BEFORE and SINCE October 2023. 

I mean, the Israeli government's policies are abominable, but people here really need to check the implications of some of their arguments.

You keep calling it a genocide despite there being no evidence. Al Jazeera, a pro-Palestinian news outlet reports Hamas' figures of 40,000 killed. This is 0.02 per cent of the estimated 2 million living in Gaza. And most of these are adult male combatants. Even with the wildest of exaggerations this figure does not support the definition of genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

darrenleroy wrote:

...of 40,000 killed. This is 0.02 per cent of the estimated 2 million living in Gaza..

It's 2 percent, not 0.02.

... and the UN's (revised down, based on identity) figures in May were that 52% of the dead were women and children. Of course that data ultimately comes from the Gazan authorites - so not acceptable to many. And some folks clearly feel that some of those women and children count as fighters or at least not innocent. (Again - we should note that Hamas have the same logic - no "innocent" Israelis).

chrisonabike wrote:

... and the UN's (revised down, based on identity) figures in May were that 52% of the dead were women and children. Of course that data ultimately comes from the Gazan authorites - so not acceptable to many. And some folks clearly feel that some of those women and children count as fighters or at least not innocent. (Again - we should note that Hamas have the same logic - no "innocent" Israelis).

Woman and children are often fighters in a terrorist /freedom fighter war. 

ErnieC wrote:

Woman and children are often fighters in a terrorist /freedom fighter war. 

And often they're just women and children. When Israel fires over 50,000 missiles and bombs into an area containing over 2,000,000 people with a population density of over 5000 per km2, does it differentiate?

Rendel Harris wrote:

ErnieC wrote:

Woman and children are often fighters in a terrorist /freedom fighter war. 

And often they're just women and children. When Israel fires over 50,000 missiles and bombs into an area containing over 2,000,000 people with a population density of over 5000 per km2, does it differentiate?

So what would you have Israel do? Sit back, relax and light up a Lucky Strike? Are you upset that they hunted down Eichmann or the bunch for the killings in Munich? Did the Bogside massacre upset you much? Operation Flavius acceptable? You ok with what happened at Bethulie, Kroonstad, Middelburg or do you only reserve your outrage when it's Israel? 
You onboard with 2 government funded teams riding, governments with a dismal human rights record or is it ok because Pog rides for 1 of them? 

Are you seriously trying to forge an equivalence between hunting down Eichmann or the Munich terrorists and the indiscriminate bombing of tightly packed civilian areas and the killing of women and children (substantial numbers of the children toddlers and even newborn babies, are they "often fighters" as well?)? Seriously? I absolutely and fully support Israel's right to take proportionate action to defend itself and to mete out severe punishment for those involved with and responsible for the appalling atrocities of October 7th. That does not mean giving the nation a free pass to carpet bomb civilians on the basis that some of the terrorists may get hit at the same time.

Rather than respond with ridiculous histrionics, perhaps you should consider the report of the US State Department: "Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations [but] results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases... UN and humanitarian organisations have described Israeli efforts to mitigate civilian harm as inconsistent, ineffective and inadequate."

Rendel Harris wrote:

Are you seriously trying to forge an equivalence between hunting down Eichmann or the Munich terrorists and the indiscriminate bombing of tightly packed civilian areas and the killing of women and children (substantial numbers of the children toddlers and even newborn babies, are they "often fighters" as well?)? Seriously? I absolutely and fully support Israel's right to take proportionate action to defend itself and to mete out severe punishment for those involved with and responsible for the appalling atrocities of October 7th. That does not mean giving the nation a free pass to carpet bomb civilians on the basis that some of the terrorists may get hit at the same time.

Rather than respond with ridiculous histrionics, perhaps you should consider the report of the US State Department: "Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations [but] results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases... UN and humanitarian organisations have described Israeli efforts to mitigate civilian harm as inconsistent, ineffective and inadequate."

The problem is determining what is a proportionate response. Stop when the same number of civilains and combatants have been killed? Can they do this any old way or do they have to replicate the exact method used by hamas.

Hard to minimise civilain casualties when combatants (and i use them term loosely) mingle amongst the civilain population. It's not as easy as it sounds and I speak from experience. IDF cannot win here, if they target specific individuals there is also an uproar and more rockets fired their way from the countries that harbour and support these people. It is a lose lose situation for them.

What gets me the most is the sudden and feigned outrage for the current celebrity cause. Where were all these Palestinian support organissations 18 months ago? Nowhere, then a groundswell of support, posters and protest all over the place and now - nothing. Could it be an orchestrated support campaign timed to coincide with the initial hamas attack.

ErnieC wrote:

Hard to minimise civilain casualties when combatants (and i use them term loosely) mingle amongst the civilain population. It's not as easy as it sounds and I speak from experience.

It's not hard to minimise civilian casualties if you don't attack areas full of civilians, even if you believe or know that enemy combatants are hiding amongst them. During the Troubles it was well known that numerous terrorists were hiding out in Belfast, the UK government did not use that as an excuse to bomb the Falls Road after IRA atrocities.

It's worth looking at the Geneva Conventions in this respect: it would take far too long to detail every breach of the Conventions committed by the IDF but pertinent to this discussion is Article 51, "Protection of Civilian Population". Section 5 states:

Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

With reference to your allegations of civilians being used as shields, this is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, same article Section 7:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

However Section 8 clearly states:

 Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 .

In other words it is illegal to attack civilians whether or not they are, or you believe they are, being used to shield combatants.

As for your last paragraph, don't be ridiculous. There have been numerous concerted and ongoing campaigns to end Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land as far back as I can remember, and that's a long long way, back to my school days in the 1980s. Of course the October 7 atrocities and Israel's retaliation to them have naturally caused a spike in interest in the issue but to claim that it's a "sudden and feigned outrage for the current celebrity cause" is just silly and I'm afraid rather undermines the validity of your arguments if you have to resort to such blatant nonsense.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ErnieC wrote:

Hard to minimise civilain casualties when combatants (and i use them term loosely) mingle amongst the civilain population. It's not as easy as it sounds and I speak from experience.

It's not hard to minimise civilian casualties if you don't attack areas full of civilians, even if you believe or know that enemy combatants are hiding amongst them. During the Troubles it was well known that numerous terrorists were hiding out in Belfast, the UK government did not use that as an excuse to bomb the Falls Road after IRA atrocities.

It's worth looking at the Geneva Conventions in this respect: it would take far too long to detail every breach of the Conventions committed by the IDF but pertinent to this discussion is Article 51, "Protection of Civilian Population". Section 5 states:

Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

With reference to your allegations of civilians being used as shields, this is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, same article Section 7:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

However Section 8 clearly states:

 Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 .

In other words it is illegal to attack civilians whether or not they are, or you believe they are, being used to shield combatants.

As for your last paragraph, don't be ridiculous. There have been numerous concerted and ongoing campaigns to end Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land as far back as I can remember, and that's a long long way, back to my school days in the 1980s. Of course the October 7 atrocities and Israel's retaliation to them have naturally caused a spike in interest in the issue but to claim that it's a "sudden and feigned outrage for the current celebrity cause" is just silly and I'm afraid rather undermines the validity of your arguments if you have to resort to such blatant nonsense.

I was surpised by the "restraint" during the Troubles, not something the UK governent is known for and TBF they did get up to underhanded stuff. 

"In other words it is illegal to attack civilians whether or not they are, or you believe they are, being used to shield combatants" - Israel is screwed then, as is this whole mess - hamas will never give up mingling with the civilian population, it's one of the basic concepts of guerilla warfare and is helping swinging public opinion against Israel so it is a win for them. Israel will never stop responding, apparently even proportionate response is off the books now. Not sure what people want them to do, roll over and see their nation wiped out as I doubt they will accepted. Stalemate?

Perhaps where you live but it was overnight sensation in Wellington and other cities in NZ. Protests, posters, blah blah blah jus after the attacks and now - nothing, no posters, no marches, no demonstrations. I have seen one chap who has painted his car as a palestinian flag, kudos for him.

I believe it has been repeatedly stated by members of various Israeli goverments / other powerful figures that one of the ways that Israel must ensure its security is NOT a proportionate response - it's "if you attack us, you will suffer worse".  c.f. Netenyahu's "We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come". This has certainly been the reality in the various larger outbreaks of violence over the last few decades (and in day-to-day life).

So "IDF cannot win" - judged by who?  International opinion is secondary - even that of by far the most important player, the US.

I can't speak for the changes in outrage but there are long-established support groups for the Palestine cause.  In addition the "left" has historically had a strand of support for this.  Perhaps this explains why when things kicked off again and when this becaume big news there were organisations which could channel the reaction?

Similar to how the US government was able to ramp up massive military support for the Israeli government - there was organisation in place of long standing.

I don't think conspiracy is needed to explain anything - over 1000 people murdered by Hamas and tens of thousands of Israelis displaced, followed by tens of times that killed by Israel and millions displaced around what was already a hugely blighted area.  That's pretty salient.

Hamas (and several other organisations - inc. Iran IIRC) say that Israel (and/or jews in general) should not exist.  Many figures in Israeli governments and military organisations, going back in time state that all the land should be Israeli - forever (and this is also the practical effect of Israeli laws).

That's not a good start for compromise and reasoned debate.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-death-toll-how-many-pales...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68387864

I think whilst the IDF and the Israeli Govt say most of the victims were "adult male combatants", I'm not entirely convinced that that is accurate…

2% of the population, not 0.02%. 0.02% of 2 million would be 400 people. Most of these are adult male combatants? According to the US Secretary of Defence, hardly a pro-Palestinian apologist, even back in March 25,000 women and children had been killed in Gaza since the 7th of October. Interesting definition of "most".

I believe 40,000 is 2% of 2 million.  Nevertheless, you are right in saying that it is not genocide.

the little onion wrote:

anything with funding from an Israeli citizen becomes somehow complicit with that policy

This isn't 'anything' though, this in particular is an Israeli citizen who's doing it explicitly to support their government's position, not just because they like cycling.

It's the difference between someone who is a Tory running a team and someone running a team called 'Yay for the Tories, vote Tory'. Despite Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos Gredadiers is not that, and this is different - the politics here are the point, not incidental.

The team's called "Israel - Premier Tech", not "Yay for Likud, vote Likud".

Judge dreadful wrote:

Presumably they ( the protesters) will face jail time for "thuggery". I won't hold my breath.

On the one hand civilly and peacefully approaching someone representing something (as you see it) with which you (and, as it happens, the United Nations) disagree and putting your point of view, and on the other hand hurling bottles, bricks and petrol bombs at the police, chanting fascist slogans, smashing up places of worship and trying to set fire to hostels containing women and children because you don't like them being in "your" country, taking the opportunity at the same time to rob Greggs of sausage rolls. Not sure I'm really seeing an equivalence there.

Is that the same respected United Nations institution that quite hilariously had terrorist state Iran as Chair of the Human Rights Council at the actual time of the massacre in Israel?

The same Iran that was beating its women to death at the same time for refusing to take the veil?

open_roads wrote:

Is that the same respected United Nations institution that quite hilariously had terrorist state Iran as Chair of the Human Rights Council at the actual time of the massacre in Israel?

No. The Iranian ambassador to the UN was appointed chair/rapporteur of the 2023 HRC Social Forum (a pretty meaningless once-a-year-talking shop with no substantive powers) by the President of the HRC because it was that region's turn on the rota to take the position and as far as I understand it he was the only nominee. Iran is/was not "Chair of the Human Rights Council", no such position exists. Of course it's distasteful in many ways that regimes such as Iran have any standing at all within the UN, but how do you think a United Nations should work? United Nations of countries that agree with liberal Western Democracy and anyone different has no representation?

y

open_roads wrote:

Is that the same respected United Nations institution that quite hilariously had terrorist state Iran as Chair of the Human Rights Council at the actual time of the massacre in Israel?

The same Iran that was beating its women to death at the same time for refusing to take the veil?

So you do not support UN institutions or the international law they are bound to uphold? If Britain want to become a pariah state then yes follow Israel in undermining global institutions and the rule of law.

Free Palestine 🇵🇸

Freed from what?  The overwhelming majority of Palestinians support Hamas' charter objective to murder all Jews. A significant promotion of the UN's local staff share their views and were "hands on" with hostage taking and keeping,

What has also been noticeable in many of the hostage reports is the depravity and wickedness of "normal" Palestinians towards hostages - including the many Palestinian women who have no greater aspiration for their kids than to be "martyred" murdering Jews.

There's also a good reason the Egyptians and Jordanians don't want Palestinians in their countries - and it's that they bring murder and trouble with them.

Yes, many Palestinians are willing to die to liberate their country from occupation. If our country were occupied its liberation could only be achieved if many of us felt the same. 

"The overwhelming majority of Palestinians support Hamas' charter objective to murder all Jews. A significant promotion of the UN's local staff share their views and were "hands on" with hostage taking and keeping,"

Citation needed / fact check anyone?

Interesting.  So if you're British, then you're responsible for all the negative effects of colonialism. I see. 

You do realize, don't you, that Hamas is responsible for the hostage-taking, not all Palestinians, right?  Or maybe you just can't be bothered by such important differences.