The Israeli attack certainly was. There is no question they intended to fire and they hit what they aimed at.

Indeed, they intended to fire [at an Egyptian warship]. They hit what they aimed at [and what they supposedly mixed up as Egyptian].

IIRC and it has been a lot of years, reports from then were that the Israeli aircraft approached close enough they had to have seen the US flag flying from the ship.

When it comes to mistakes or accidents (e.g. police shooting) often years later some experts at their office desk find out who has made a mistake in tense, dangerous situations. Often questionable.

Higher ups in government or military tend to base their orders on own outdated experience from decades ago. In between fighter jets became much more powerful, faster; anti-aircraft measures more lethal... I think its not the easiest task in wartime to identify a grey painted warship at sea solely by the flag at its stern or top mast from a fast fighter jet at low altitude when the pilot has to fear anti-aircraft fire.

No one is saying what the orders were, but I suspect they were of the kind, it is moves kill it. Essentially the same orders that Benji has given the IDF today as to Gaza.

The higher ups are responsible to issue error-avoiding, feasible orders. These orders back then clearly were not. U.S. orders as well.

[back to topic:]The IDF accidently shot some of the Israeli hostages who freed themselves and walked out to the IDF. So, there's something wrong with IDF's orders or the rules of engagement. And there's clearly something wrong with Hamas ignoring all a century old rules and customs of war. That is: combatants have to wear clearly identifiably uniforms. They have their fancy black parade dresses only for video propaganda, as it seems. But as long as they deliberately dress as civilians in combat, there will be further terrible mistakes.

My take on the attack is that Isreal did not want their crime against humanity documented.

---

low altitude when the pilot has to fear anti-aircraft fire.

What anti-aircraft fire? Perhaps that should have been a huge alarm bell ringing in the pilot's head.

[back to topic:]The IDF accidently shot some of the Israeli hostages who freed themselves and walked out to the IDF. So, there's something wrong with IDF's orders or the rules of engagement.

obvious

And there's clearly something wrong with Hamas ignoring all a century old rules and customs of war. That is: combatants have to wear clearly identifiably[sic] uniforms.

Israel does not believe Hamas is a country as does most of the rest of the world and as far as I can find those rules of war only apply to countries.* If Israel were to recognize Hamas domestically all hell would break out and internationally Israel would be unquestionably guilty of war crimes. If Israel had to positively identify if a shadow was non-combatant, friend or foe before firing it would cost Israel a lot of soldiers, however that is what the Hague convention requires. Perhaps if you can't pay the price you shouldn't start a war. In any case as Hamas isn't recognized as a country, being smart, they don't wear uniforms to fight costing Israel public opinion and public opinion is a legitimate weapon of war.

*Privateers certainly did not obey them, even when they had backing of Sovereigns. Nor do they today off Somalia. Neither Israel or Hamas have signed the 1907 Hague conventions.
[aside]US and Brittan firebombings of WWII, both of which had signed Hague, was "justified" on four reasons. 1) There was at least one war material factory in the city destroyed. 2) The residents were paying taxes and however indirect thus were waging war. 3) Some residents worked at the war material factory. 4) expediency to end the conflict.
Historians will for the next millennia debate if the justifications were real or sufficient. As the Allies were the victors they got to write the history and decide if any charges were to be made. In the case of Germany, in light of the Holocaust one could advance the argument that the rules of war needed to be discarded to end the crime against humanity. In the case of Japan only a very thin case could be made on the basis of their self declared intention to fight to the last man; to make them stare in the face exactly what that declared intention would look like.

Israel does not believe Hamas is a country as does most of the rest of the world ...

That's a bizarre statement. Neither do I, as it happens.

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is a state or a country. More than likely, one or the other will be elected in November to represent the USA - and will be recognised in that role by the rest of the diplomatic world.

The problem in the Middle East is that the teams dividing the spoils of war after the two world wars neglected to define and recognise anywhere as an independent Palestinian state. There's nowhere (in the eyes of the international community) for Hamas to represent. Israel did eventually reach recognised statehood: the difference, I would argue, represents a hangover from the racist colonial mindset of the time - and we seem to be stuck with the consequences.

It's clear from both that Britain's finger drawing lines in the sand had a significant influence on the area, 30 years before the UN declarations after the Second World War.

And it's also clear that on the Arab side of that line in the sand, it rankles to this day.

Don't forget French fingers.

Al-Jazeera is funny: "opinion" (of Arabs in Palestine) or "illegal [British] policy". In absolutist monarchies of the time like Russian or Osman Empire, peasant's "opinion" was meaningsless. The British haven't conquered Palestine to impose 'democracy' there (against regional Arab princes' interests). They were the victorious power in the Middle East. So there's no such thing as: "illegal policy". No sense to further discuss such onesided, history-ignoring piece of propaganda.

In 1917 Europe was in the middle of the Great War, frozen fronts in France and Belgium, no prospect of an end. The British conquered Baghdad and pushed the Ottomans out. Before, in 1915, French and British failed (cf. Gallipoli campaign, ANZAC day) to occupy the Black Sea entrance together with the Osman Empire's capital, Constantinople (today: Istanbul). British and French wanted to finally break-up this antiquated, pre-modern Empire in order to detach its Arab dominions in the Levant and the Middle East (today: Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt).

The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for a century. It became too weak to stop Russia's intended expansion from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean (btw. the only reason to have Turkey in NATO). Therefore, the Ottomans sought support from Britain, later Germany. They opted for the Central Powers. The German Empire immediately used its position to threaten the British everywhere, to mobilize Muslim unrest against them. German Generals replaced Osman military's leadership. British and French needed reliable sea and land routes to their colonies in Asia. Not to forget the Suez Canal (built by France; later most important for Britain), which has been fought over since 1914. That's what it was all about. In Sep 1918 the British finally defeated the Ottomans who where led by a German General.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, the idea of a Jewish nation state, was just the topping on the cake to gain U.S support (possibly from Russia too) for the Entente plans in the Middle East. Breaking up Empires into independent states or forming modern nation states also corresponds to the principles of U.S. Monroe Doctrine. Brits are clever, aren't they?

It was the age of empires and their struggle for influence. The accident of history was an undefeated Empire growing tired of its power and responsibilities. The end of Pax Britannica is the root cause for the mess it left behind. [off-topic, won't discuss it further...]

I said I didn't watch the Al-Jazeera programme, but it was re-broadcast overnight, so I made a recording which I've now had a chance to review.

You're right to highlight the French in the initial moves: the programme is absolutely explicit to describe the initial "agreement" as drawn up by Francois Georges Picou (French) and Sir Mark Sykes (British). But I put the word "agreement" in quotation marks because they were both employees of their respective governments: they could draft an agreement, but the final version could only be made binding by elected politicians, acting under their powers as representatives of those governments. Russia was also mentioned briefly, but seem to have left the discussion early - perhaps distracted by their own revolution.

It seems that the first, anglo-french, draft gave little or no attention to the Jews. But the later negotiations by the politicians very much drew the Zionist wing of that faith into the conversation. The rest of the first half hour seems to suggest a mutual exploration of ideas beneficial to both the British and the Zionists: the French largely disappear from there on.

Except for one jarring note. Just leading into the commercial break, one of the talking heads scattered throughout the broadcast - James Renton*, of Edge Hill University - pops up to declare, in the most direct terms, that the British politicians were operating throughout from a position of strong, committed, antisemitism. The point wasn't followed up after the break, and I'm still trying to get my head round it.

* James Renton checks out - he's listed as Professor of History at Edge Hill. In his own words, "I am an historian of antisemitism and Islamophobia, empire, and global politics." (link)

Israel does not believe Hamas is a country as does most of the rest of the world and as far as I can find those rules of war only apply to countries.* If Israel were to recognize Hamas domestically all hell would break out and internationally Israel would be unquestionably guilty of war crimes. If Israel had to positively identify if a shadow was non-combatant, friend or foe before firing it would cost Israel a lot of soldiers, however that is what the Hague convention requires.

You described Hamas strategy exactly: Attack Israel in such a way that it cannot repel or destroy the attacker. Two million Gazans are used as a shield to achieve this. The death of many is part of their strategy. Hamas' Haniyya explained it in a TV interview. They are honest people who didn't hide their true intentions. Hamas waged war against Israel. But Gaza is no sovereign state. Al-Qaeda waged war against the U.S., no sovereign state either. What's a reasonable response? Patiently ignoring? Is Hamas or are Palestinians beyond any responsibility because they lack state sovereignty? This leads nowhere. Look back to Palestine under British occupation: How were irregular fighters (Arab and Zionist) dealt with back then? The resistance fighters of one side are partisans for the other. Conventions on warfare are intended to protect civilians and POWs. Accusations by terrorists about war crimes are pointless. The core problem is a territory without sovereignty (but no responsibility?), inhabited by millions, filled with decades of revanchist hate, pumped full of money and arms to cultivate more hate and breed more Jihadist murderers. Many are responsible for this, and THEY ALL have to be part of a process to clean-up the mess, they caused:

• Britain left a vacuum in 1948, shifted it to UN.
  
• Egypt occupied and misused Gaza for its aggression (as Jordan did with West Bank)
  
• Israel kicked Gaza into anarchy in 2005
  
• UN passively supervises Gaza's anarchy and demands from Israel to kick West Bank into anarchy too.
  
• some UN members (U.S., Germany, ...) spent many billion dollars to Gaza without reliable control & review
  
• The shadows: Qatar, Mullahs, ...
  

Perhaps if you can't pay the price you shouldn't start a war. In any case as Hamas isn't recognized as a country, being smart, they don't wear uniforms to fight costing Israel public opinion and public opinion is a legitimate weapon of war.

That's the opposite of reality. This war started at Oct 7th. If your argument meant that only sovereign states (Israel) are potential belingerents, while non-sovereign subjects have no responsibility for nothing, then Putin's method of "Green Men" or any insurgents can reduce the entire world to rubble without a defense being possible. The public opinion until 1939 in Britain, until 1941 in the U.S. was to appease Hitler. Did Nazi Germany simply spent to few for propaganda or influence abroad to achieve its war goals? But yes, public opinion is a powerful weapon.

[aside]US and Brittan firebombings of WWII, both of which had signed Hague, was "justified" on four reasons. 1) There was at least one war material factory in the city destroyed. 2) The residents were paying taxes and however indirect thus were waging war. 3) Some residents worked at the war material factory. 4) expediency to end the conflict.

Points 1 to 4: Firebombing Gaza would therefore be justified, right?

Historians will for the next millennia debate if the justifications were real or sufficient.

No. Mankind unfortunately forgets about unjustified cruelties in war within few generations. In WW1 Germans invaded neutral Belgium, razed cities and many villages to the ground. A witch hunt for "Francs-tireurs" (partisans) killed 6,500 innocent Belgian civilians. Does anyone still debate or knows about?

[...]In the case of Germany, in light of the Holocaust one could advance the argument that the rules of war needed to be discarded to end the crime against humanity.

Hamas didn't murdered, tortured, or [list of atrocities] enough Israelis on Oct 7th to qualify as a crime against humanity? Israel patiently has to wait until the Mullahs detonate a nuclear bomb above Tel Aviv. Only then, if at least millions perish, defense is justified. But IDF isn't discarding rules of war but fighting Hamas and any infrastructure they use. Attacks are justified, even if it leads to extensive collateral damage, even thousands civilian deaths. I admit the morally desastrous position in which Israel increasingly finds itself, as planned by Hamas.

In the case of Japan only a very thin case could be made on the basis of their self declared intention to fight to the last man; to make them stare in the face exactly what that declared intention would look like.

Japan treated western POWs well, or people in occupied Mandchuria(China)? With such an exaggeration of ethical principles or rules in war, every responsible, democratic society must inevitably succumb if it is confronted with an unscrupulous opponent who is willing to sacrifice millions of own soldiers and/or civilians. [Putin knows our ethical and moral principles].

Except for one jarring note. [...] that the British politicians were operating throughout from a position of strong, committed, antisemitism. [...]

Unfortunately antisemitism wasn't a German phenomenon but widespread in most parts of Europe since the Middle Ages. Jewish expatriates didn't blend with majority society everywhere in Europe or Middle East because of their traditional marriage rules. There were medieval laws for segregation: Jewish quarters, Jewish streets. Still today you can find corresponding street names (e.g. "Judengasse" - Jew's alley) in some historic German city centres. Medieval professional guilds excluded non-Christians. This meant Jews were unable to work in many craft professions. Christians (and Muslims) on the other hand weren't allowed to lend money, but Jews were. Over the centuries this led to a more educated Jewish population which concentrated in towns and cities: moneylenders, money changers, bankers, lawyers, musicians, artists. In short: European Jews were better off, more influential people than average, whose opponents had it easy with antisemitic prejudices... Guild bans were later abolished; Jews gained equal civil rights in nation states of the 19th century. But medieval antisemitic rules, laws and habits had an long lasting negative impact almost everywhere in Europe.

We learned "History of persecution of Jews" in high school (de: Gymnasium). It's the only topic in the 11th class in course "political education" for a full school year.

Don't I just know it - I live in the same region as Clifford's Tower, York, where "The city’s entire Jewish community was trapped by an angry mob inside the tower of York Castle", in 1190 AD.

But my remarks were in the specific context of the Al-Jazeera broadcast, where the comment seemed to be entirely separate from the preceding (and following) narrative of the story. It feels like a teaser for a future segment of the story, to be told in part 2 - but there was no such explanation. My best guess so far is that it was a subtle - but too subtle - reference to the distinction between Zionism and general Judaism. But I'd welcome other ideas.

Britain left a vacuum in 1948, shifted it to UN.

As viewed in 1948 wasn't that the right thing to do, pass the problem over to a World Authority, rather than a possibly biased view of one country.

And let's not forget, the UK was absolutely broke at the end of WW2, and was getting pressure from the U.S. to pull out of occupied countries and let them govern themselves. And look at how well that worked out in the Indian subcontinent and Africa.

edit] N.B. I was a schoolboy in the 1950's in Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

This war started at Oct 7th.

29 October 1956 might be a better start date. Then again how many armistices have there been versus how many actual peace treaties? How many were left not signing?

The issue is the arms suppliers impose stop shooting on the parties but the conflict remains and as long as it does the fighting will resume.

This war started at Oct 7th.

29 October 1956 might be a better start date.

The start date of the Arab-Jewish conflict in this region can be pushed back into the past at will, as we have already discussed here in detail. [I recently stumbled upon the fact that the U.S. Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, vigorously opposed Truman's recognition of the State of Israel in 1948, foreseeing that it would lead to a major Arab-Israeli war. Marshall condemned it as a pure political move to gain support from American Jews in the upcoming presidential elections.]

That's why I have to disagree again. It was solely Hamas' decision to declare war on Israel on Oct 7th by deliberately murdering more than a thousand civilians (which typically marks the distinction between skirmishes and war). There was no peace before, of course. Same in Korea. If Kim tomorrow decides to invade the South and 1,000 dead lie on the streets, then Kim would have been started a war exactly at this date, just like Putin started a war on Feb 24th, 2022. Those responsible for aggression should always be clearly named.

Then again how many armistices have there been versus how many actual peace treaties? How many were left not signing?

The most tragic peace treaty that was never signed is undoubtedly the draft of the Camp David Summit in 2000. Americans, PLO and Israel had worked seriously on peace.

My best guess so far is that it was a subtle - but too subtle - reference to the distinction between Zionism and general Judaism. But I'd welcome other ideas.

My idea: Antisemitism only became such a... hmmm... frightening, damnable sin after the Holocaust became known to world public in all its horrendous details. If history had been different, antisemitic beliefs would not have such a 'jarring effect' today. I guess that's how one has to understand the rumored attitude of British politicians back then. Eventually religion still had a greater importance to them, i.e. that Jews are no Christians. They could not have known back then what would happen sixteen years later (1933) in Germany. World-changing events can change thinking abruptly.

Britain left a vacuum in 1948, shifted it to UN.

As viewed in 1948 wasn't that the right thing to do, pass the problem over to a World Authority, rather than a possibly biased view of one country.

The question back then, and more so today: Is the UN a world authority? Is the UN Security Council a world authority? UN lacks the required power and UNSC is divided, only a stage for ongoing diplomatic battles, at least since 1950. I admit, I forgot about effects of WW2 to Britains economy as well as the unsolved ideological differences between the U.S. and the Colonial Empires that still existed after 1945: UK, Netherlands, France, eventually Belgium, Spain, Portugal too.

That's why I have to disagree again. It was solely Hamas' decision to declare war on Israel on Oct 7th

Simply another battle in a war that has been continuous for several decades. Or do you forget the near daily rockets shot across the line of forces, the naval blockade of the coastline?

Same in Korea. If Kim tomorrow decides to invade the South and 1,000 dead lie on the streets, then Kim would have been started a war exactly at this date

In the case of Korea formal declarations of war still exist and the armistice did not end that war.

Simply another battle in a war that has been continuous for several decades. Or do you forget the near daily rockets shot across the line of forces, the naval blockade of the coastline?

Rockets... You can investigate who continuously started rockets, shot them into residential areas in Israel. Which rocket owner from Lebanon is responsible that Israel was forced to evacuate ~10% of its state territory in the north. The naval blockade of Gaza surely prevented Iran from delivering ballistic missiles to Gaza, as in Yemen, or speed boats like the ones Iran used to hijack cargo ships in the Persian Gulf. Each of your arguments as well as each of mine can be countered this way. On a road to peace they (both sides) have to stop further aggressions first.

But Benji is just preparing a further aggression in Rafah, isn't he? Now imagine, Hamas would not have taken hundreds of hostages on Oct 7th. There would be time now to think, to negotiate, to plan for alternatives... (In former decades Israel tasked Mossad to take the time to trace and kill the leading terrorists everywhere on the globe, even years after attacks). But now there are still more than a hundred Israeli hostages. Appeasement leads to more hostages. No sovereign nation can tolerate this. That was an important part of Hamas' strategy... or the Mullah's? Who will emerge as the moral* victor from this battle? I have no guess.

In the case of Korea formal declarations of war still exist and the armistice did not end that war.

That's what I meant with this comparision. But any serious attack by Kim against the South would start a new "war", that is, an unnecessary aggression, he alone would be responsible for. That's what Hamas did on Oct 7th. Someone decided to prepare, train for, and initiate this "war". (...or if you prefer: this battle of a decades long war).

*moral.... because there will only be losers, losses and suffering for both sides.

*moral.... because there will only be losers, losses and suffering for both sides.

Hamas and Zionists enter one man leaves. This is the only solution. They have to be left alone without any outside attempts to impose peace to fight until one side or the other finally begs mercy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=two+men+enter+one+man+leaves#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:55fba676,vid:pmRAiUPdRjk,st:0

*moral.... because there will only be losers, losses and suffering for both sides.

Hamas and Zionists enter one man leaves. This is the only solution. They have to be left alone without any outside attempts to impose peace to fight until one side or the other finally begs mercy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=two+men+enter+one+man+leaves#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:55fba676,vid:pmRAiUPdRjk,st:0

The idea is compelling. All wars would end immediately if those who decided to start them had to fight themselves.

But you mentioned "arms suppliers" at the sidelines before. So you also have to get the whole rat pack into the arena, including Mullahs, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PLO, some Qataris, Putin, [others?]. It won't erase Islamist beliefs in the minds of Palestinians or the Greater Israel ideology of Benji's Likud and the radical Orthodox. A lot of them are convinced that Israel's 2005 evacuation of Gaza was absolutely wrong and must be reversed. The Oct 7th attack delivered them convincing arguments.

It seems to me the bible does not mention who was Pharoh during the time of Moses or Exodus. No hieroglifs have been found showing either.
Therfore one can conclude Exodus may very well be a myth and Isreals claim of biblical soverenty to the land has no basis in fact.

---

It seems to me the bible does not mention who was Pharoh during the time of Moses or Exodus. No hieroglifs have been found showing either.
Therfore one can conclude Exodus may very well be a myth and Isreals claim of biblical soverenty to the land has no basis in fact.

Yes, that‘s also the position of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein. This theological leader teaches there never existed any Jewish places of worship on the Temple Mount; only Al-Aqsa mosque. Al-Aqsa is there since 3,000 years, since 30,000 years, … since the beginning of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_denial