Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

kabbes said:
There’s normally a hardcore 10% that will vote for any nonsense on these polls. Continuing with no ceasefire couldn’t even manage that benchmark.
Click to expand...
When I did market research in Belfast, I was once sent out to the (nationalist) Springfield Road to ask people what sunday newspapers they read.

More than one auld fella decided that he'd have a bit of fun with me, and tipped me the wink while saying "don't tell the wife, son, but I read the Sunday Sport".

Ever since then, I have regarded opinion polls as barometers of social reality whose accuracy is only rivalled by the Oracle of Delphi, etc.
 
platinumsage said:
The only organisation counting is Hamas. Sure, civilians in Gaza are being killed every day, but there's no point paying close attention to the particular numbers because they're almost certainly inflated, as Hamas as a long and consist record of doing.
Click to expand...
Have you a source for your claim that the Palestinian health ministry in the Gaza Strip has consistently inflated casualty figures over the years?
 
emanymton said:
I can't help thinking that focusing on this one missile strike that may or may not have been Israel favours Israel by distracting attention away from all the stuff they are unquestionably doing.

I feel similar about going on about a ceasefire as that plays into the narrative that this is some kind of war netween 2 armies when it really isn't.
Click to expand...

I also thought, apart from distracting attention, the subtext of the loads of posts on it was to discredit those who support Palestinian rights. It was a trap that some here walked into. Making out that the kind of people who tend to support Palestinian rights and criticise Israel are post truth. It's why I kept off it.
And thus anything they say is discredited.


Looking at news last night the horrors of the hospital bombing ( which ever side the bomb came from) are being replicated in footage of those who've lost family in other bombings by Israel. Which bombings Israel aren't denying.

Agree asking for ceasefire can play into narrative it's two equal armies. But asked this as one would have thought that it was reasonable position that could be taken by those with differing opinions. Appears not.
 
Last edited:
The39thStep said:
It may be worth looking at the process and final content of the Brazilian motion and the USA's response to it to understand a little more about the latter's position.


Russia circulated a draft proposal on October 13th and the following day asked Brazil , as October's Council President, to put it to a vote on October 16th. During the 13 October consultations, some members asked Brazil, in its capacity as Council president, to coordinate with the other members and lead the negotiations on a separate Council outcome on the crisis, in an apparent attempt to reduce the perceived politicisation some members associated with the Russian initiative and to increase the chances of the Council adopting an outcome. That evening, Brazil circulated the first draft of its resolution to Council members.


The initial draft text condemned the “terrorist attacks by Hamas”, all violence against civilians and “acts of terrorism”, as well as the “taking of civilian hostages”, calling for their “immediate and unconditional release”. It urged the Israeli authorities to “immediately rescind” the 13 October evacuation order and demanded an end to “measures that result in the deprivation of civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, including electricity, water, fuel, food and medical supplies”. This draft also called for “an immediate ceasefire” and demanded that all parties allow unhindered humanitarian access and for the “establishment of humanitarian pauses that enable humanitarian corridors”.


Following comments from the UAE, Brazil circulated an amended version. These issues apparently included a rejection of Hamas’ 7 October attacks, the need to respect international humanitarian law, the need for humanitarian access and a humanitarian ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the importance of preventing regional spillover of the crisis. the UAE position was that it was important to try and seek middle ground to try and get a resolution through.


Brazil circulated a revised version of its draft, inviting comments until 1 pm the following day, a deadline later extended to 3 pm. In the evening of 15 October, following further amendments a final revised motion was scheduled for vote.


The significant amendments included a stronger condemnation of the 7 October events, “nequivocally reject[ing] and condemn[ing] the heinous terrorist attacks by Hamas” and the taking of civilian hostages. also emphasises the importance of preventing regional spillover of the conflict. A significant departure from the initial version of the Brazilian draft is that it no longer calls “for an immediate ceasefire”. The draft in blue calls for “humanitarian pauses” to allow humanitarian access, whereas the initial draft contained stronger language demanding that all parties promptly allow humanitarian access. It also “encourages” establishing humanitarian corridors and “tresses the importance of a humanitarian notification mechanism to protect UN facilities and all humanitarian sites, and to ensure the movement of aid convoys”.


Apparently, the US did not engage meaningfully in the negotiations on both drafts, prioritising instead bilateral and shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East. This appears to be consistent with the view that the US has expressed in the past that the UN is not “the most practical or useful forum” for discussing issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


The vote was as follows: for 12 in favour: Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, and the UAE, two abstained (Russia and the UK) , one against : USA

(summary from Security Council Report website)


The USA's UN ambassador said that :

"Colleagues, as we meet, President Biden is in the region. His trip is a clear demonstration of the fact that the United States is actively engaging at the highest levels: to secure the release of hostages; to prevent the conflict from spreading; to stress the need to protect civilian lives; to address the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza; and to demonstrate to the Israeli people that the United States stands with them in their time of sorrow and need.


We are on the ground, doing the hard work of diplomacy. And while we recognize Brazil’s desire to move this text forward, we believe we need to let that diplomacy play out, especially when Secretary-General Guterres, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and regional actors are engaged in intensive dialogue on the very issues we are deliberating on today.


Colleagues, the United States is disappointed this resolution made no mention of Israel’s right of self-defense. "


The USA of course didn't engage itself in proposing an amendment or making any attempts at negotiating with an amendment to rectify its disappointment. So the reason that Biden apparently is 'the man in the world who is most able to help him ( Abass) get some kind of limited ceasefire and humanitarian aid into Gaza, and possibly some wider political process going,' is entirely due to the US veto at the UN Security Council and it wanting it to appear that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this

From this I take it USA regard Israel as exclusively their concern and that other countries who see the UN as a vehicle to de escalate the violence should keep out of it

I'm assuming USA think if they let UN get to involved and a ceasefire happens through it the next thing some UN countries will start on is dealing with the context. The Israeli occupation of West Bank / illegal settlements/ lack of move to genuine two state solution. A just peace. This isn't what USA want

I also thought it was insulting of USA to complain that the last draft did not have anything about Israel right to defend itself when USA didn't put any amendments in. Shows a contempt for UN
 
Gramsci said:
Thanks for this

From this I take it USA regard Israel as exclusively their concern and that other countries see the UN as a vehicle to de escalate the violence should keep out of it

I also thought it was insulting of USA to complain that the last draft did not have anything about Israel right to defend itself when USA didn't put any amendments in. Shows a contempt for UN
Click to expand...
I think it's also about the US protecting itself and its own right to act.

Israel has the right to defend itself and our default position is that it is a democratic country and so any decision it takes regarding its self-defence will necessarily be reasonable.

That's basically the line the likes of the US, UK and France are taking thus far. In the US's case, and sadly by extension also the case of the UK, it is also implicitly a defence of the US's right to bomb civilians when they see fit.
 
The Israeli military has killed more than 4,200 Palestinians since the conflict started on 7 October, according to the latest tally.

The following numbers are accurate as of 11:30 (GMT) on 20 October and are sourced from the Palestinian health ministry.

Gaza

  • Killed: More than 4,137 (1,524+ children, 1,032+ women)
  • Wounded: 13,162
West Bank and East Jerusalem

  • Killed: 81 (23 children, one woman)
  • Wounded: At least 1,400
MEE
 
kabbes said:
That’s always been the argument for having them. But remember that Yes Minister scene? At what point are you throwing a nuke? When they cross the border? When there are skirmishes in outer urban areas? When they’re encamped near your capital? There is never an obvious point at which it is justified to respond by killing millions of civilians.
Click to expand...
I very doubt Israel would ever use nuclear weapons without them being used against them.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I think it's also about the US protecting itself and its own right to act.

Israel has the right to defend itself and our default position is that it is a democratic country and so any decision it takes regarding its self-defence will necessarily be reasonable.

That's basically the line the likes of the US, UK and France are taking thus far. In the US's case, and sadly by extension also the case of the UK, it is also implicitly a defence of the US's right to bomb civilians when they see fit.
Click to expand...
Whilst accepting your general point , France voted for the Brazil motion .
 
Pickman's model said:
I don't know how many Palestinians will be killed over the course of the war. But a bigger conflagration will obvs kill more people and last longer than a 'simple' zionist invasion of Gaza. You may get your desire - things are already moving US troops attacked in Iraq and Syria as EU warns of ‘spillover’ from Israel conflict. But if you think about all the second and third order effects of the war in Ukraine, a regional or wider war centred on the Middle East will likely eclipse the European conflict in its wider impact.

When Hitler and the ussr invaded Poland in 1939 sure a lot of poles were chuffed when they heard Britain and France had joined the war over their plight. But how many lived to see ve day, is a much lower number. I suspect when - if - the current situation eases and a measure of peace returns to gaza a shocking number of mass graves will be revealed as will many corpses be found under buildings. And those who survive will likely face a future with diseases and ailments, and injuries, caused by the conflict. It's an appalling prospect whether the war remains confined to Israel plus gaza and the occupied territories or if it spreads.
Click to expand...

That's a good example in that it demands a lot of thought. I really don't think it makes your point for you though - certainly not prime face. Possibly (probably I think?) the Nazis would have invaded Russia anyway and may have won because they were fighting on one front rather than two. Another alternative is that Germany + Austria + Czechoslovakia + half of Poland might still under Nazi rule even today. I don't want to dwell on that historical counterfactual, but it's really not obvious what the least bad outcome is either then or right now. There is a powerful case for pacifism but there are well rehearsed problems with pacifism. (There is also the possibility that what you advocate for and what you hope for are two different things...)

I'll admit I'm playing devils advocate a bit, but I think we're at where we're at because Palestine and Gaza in particular were being abandoned on the international stage, I am genuinely more terrified that they will be abandoned again than I am of a bigger war, even if it means Iran is taking the lead.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
This is a 'hot' phase, certainly. But wider conflagration brings in the nuclear option. I don't trust Israel not to use it if faced with an existential threat.
Click to expand...
If the IDF was being overwhelmed by the army of another state, then it might make "sense" (if we can use such a term for such an eventuality) for the State of Israel to drop a nuclear bomb on the capital city of that state. For example, when it seemed in 1973 that the Egyptian army would continue its advance.
 
Knotted said:
That's a good example in that it demands a lot of thought. I really don't think it makes your point for you though - certainly not prime face. Possibly (probably I think?) the Nazis would have invaded Russia anyway and may have won because they were fighting on one front rather than two. Another alternative is that Germany + Austria + Czechoslovakia + half of Poland might still under Nazi rule even today. I don't want to dwell on that historical counterfactual, but it's really not obvious what the least bad outcome is either then or right now. There is a powerful case for pacifism but there are well rehearsed problems with pacifism. (There is also the possibility that what you advocate for and what you hope for are two different things...)

I'll admit I'm playing devils advocate a bit, but I think we're at where we're at because Palestine and Gaza in particular were being abandoned on the international stage, I am genuinely more terrified that they will be abandoned again than I am of a bigger war, even if it means Iran is taking the lead.
Click to expand...
I think Hitler planned to invade the ussr anyway but the point is Britain and France went to war over Poland and maybe 40m, maybe more, dead people later (thinking of the European and African theatres rather than the entire world) a measure of peace returned to Europe. This is an example, no one today is playing Hitler or stalin. It's just that when a war starts over the fate of a nation who knows where it might end.
 
An interesting account of events in 1982, when the Israeli armed forces put the city of Beirut under siege, and Ariel Sharon was defence minister in the Israeli government, and the USA decided to put an end to it.

“It was reported by the Ottawa Citizen (originally from a New York Times interview) that during one of two phone conversations on 12 August between US president Ronald Reagan and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Reagan angrily described the bombing of West Beirut as a "holocaust"”.

“On 10 August, when American envoy Philip Habib submitted a draft agreement to Israel, Sharon, probably impatient with what he regarded as American meddling, ordered a saturation bombing of Beirut, during which at least 300 people were killed. That bombing was followed by a protest to the Israeli government by President Ronald Reagan. In response, on 12 August, the Israeli cabinet stripped Ariel Sharon of most of his powers; he was not allowed to order the use of air force, armored force and artillery without agreement of the cabinet or prime minister”.

Siege of Beirut - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
15K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Pickman's model
Israel and hezbollah after the exploding pagers
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
466
Views
20K
TopCat
TopCat
WhyLikeThis
Mpox - news and discussion
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
387
Views
22K
Cerv
C
teqniq
Worldwide protest/actions concerning events in Gaza/Palestine/Israel
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
11K
zahir
Z
littlebabyjesus
Israel's shoddy Gaza propaganda
2 3 4
Replies
116
Views
8K
frogwoman
frogwoman
Back
Top Bottom