Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

There’s lots of talk about Israeli war crimes, but it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not - it will require close monitoring and an investigation. Hamas however have indisputably committed war crimes. So it’s not really surprising that many politicians are reserving their condemnation of Israeli war crimes at this stage, and instead warning them to be careful not to commit such crimes. A good summary here:

Seems disputable. Well that’s a view eh?
 
Given that 25% of Americans think the Hamas attacks were justified (1, 2) I reckon that lots of people on this thread do too, despite begrudgingly claiming otherwise.

Well you know, the longer Israel's current paroxysm of grief and rage goes on, I 'reckon' that 25% could well increase. We like to justify things retrospectively don't we? How does 20000 dead in Gaza sound, with 100000 injured? Do you think we'll all be standing with Israel at that point? Will the 7th October horror have been purged by then?

Dont bother answering tbh, we'll all have the chance to see what happens soon enough.
 
The October Declaration


The 'October Declaration' was organized by Laura Dodsworth and Allison Pearson, who provides some background in this article:
Allison Pearson - It’s time to take a stand for civilisation - Telegraph (archived)

Here's an x-twitter thread about them by Bob from Brockley archived as a web page here

Allison Pearson may well be familiar because of her right-wing newspaper columns, but Laura Dodsworth may not be. She is an 'author, journalist, photographer' who produced a series of books 'Bare Reality: 100 women, their breasts, their stories', 'Manhood: The Bare Reality' and 'Womanhood: The Bare Reality' juxtaposing photographs of breasts, penises and vaginas respectively with the thoughts of those photographed. Laura Dodsworth: Why I photographed 100 vulvas - BBC News

The pandemic appears to have led her down somewhat of a conspiraloon path. In 2021 she produced a book 'A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic'
This is a book about fear. Fear of a virus. Fear of death. Fear of losing our jobs, our democracy, our human connections, our health and our minds. It's also about how the government weaponised our fear against us – supposedly in our best interests – until we were one of the most frightened countries in the world.
'A State of Fear is dark, compelling, determined and heartfelt. A timely and fascinating read'- Neil Oliver, writer and broadcaster

And this year has co-authored a second, 'Free Your Mind. The New World of Manipulation and how to resist it', with behavioural scientist Patrick Fagan, formerly 'Lead Psychologist at Cambridge Analytica'.

'A State of Fear' was taken apart by David Aaronovitch in the Times:
A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth review — a covidiot’s guide to the pandemic - Times (archived)

It's tempting to see a line of continuity between an art project photographing 100 vulvas and penises, and a petition collecting the signatures of many well known middle and upper class people, but there is also quite an interesting connection between Dodsworth and Pearson. As Bob from Brockley points out, they are both fans of Italy's far right prime minister Giorgia Meloni.

Allison Pearson - Giorgia Meloni isn’t far-Right – she just says what we all think - Telegraph (archived) (28.09.2022)

x-tweet by Dodsworth (link):
Laura Dodsworth @BareReality
Meloni electrifies the crowds. Not because she creates and exploits hysteria in the way genuine ‘far right’ leaders do but because she speaks to a thirst for freedom and self-individuation.
10:42 AM · Sep 26, 2022

There is a strand of right wing thought in this country which sees Meloni as a role model:
Camilla Tominey - Meloni and Sunak are the power couple that could save Europe from oblivion - Telegraph (archived)
The pair have much in common, both vilified by Leftists for seeing the threat to Western nations from illegal migration

These are people, not unlike Mussolini stans in the 1930s, who long for a regime in which undesirables are dealt with, the trains run on time and train drivers know their place.

Given Pearson's long history of Islamophobia - 2018 'Don't ban Boris... ban the burka!' (archived) - it is hardly surprising that the October Declaration refers to the rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK since the attack by Hamas, but not the rise in anti-muslim incidents.

Many of those signing the petition will be doing so out of horror at Hamas' action. As to it's organisers, however, it is hard to disagree with Karam Bales (x-twitter link) :

A Declaration organised by ppl who have spent the past 3 years equating lockdowns, masks and vaccines to the Holocaust are probably more focused on attacking Muslims than showing concern for Jewish people
 
There’s lots of talk about Israeli war crimes, but it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not

Given that 25% of Americans think the Hamas attacks were justified (1, 2) I reckon that lots of people on this thread do too, despite begrudgingly claiming otherwise.

See you really shouldn't post so early in the morning when you've forgotten to put on that gossamer mask you wear.
 
For a professional pollster, that Harris question looks poorly composed and clumsy; there has to be a question about how many respondents would be confused by that.

View attachment 396864
Quite. It mixes up an odd passive notion of something that “can be justified” (by whom? Under what circumstances?) with the active notion of something that the respondent themself DOES justify. I mean, from my cosy Western perch, I don’t think the killing of those civilians is justified at all in any way. But it is a tautology that it CAN be justified, because, clearly, the people who did it must justify it to themselves. So what do I answer? That I “think it can be justified” (i.e. by someone, somewhere, which includes the people who did it)? Or that it is “not justified” (by me)?
 
A comparable yet more straightforward and comprehensible question yielded a significantly smaller cohort of respondents who might be described as 'justifying' the attack:

1698135461764.png
I'm not convinced that a quarter of Americans think the attack was justified.
 
And even of that 14% the question of whether it's terrorist is not a given. For some people it might count as a war crime but not terror, because for years we've been propagandised that "terrorism" is something done by non-government actors.

The fundamental though is that people's reactions are complex. There can be reactions involving agreement with the right, indeed duty, of an oppressed people to fight their tormentors which reject anything from none to all of the acts committed in the name of that cause over the course of the month. Some people might with varying degrees of reluctance agree with an act then refuse to go further, or change their verdict following new information. People and their views aren't just static numbers on a page with this stuff.

It's frankly quite puerile, and often counterproductive, to reduce those reactions to a binary position. We can see this playing out in simplistic for-or-agin lines of questioning dragging the quality of media debate on the topic like an albatross every night of the week.
 
Last edited:
Try living a life as a black wc compared to white wc and the benefits are clear to see.
The developing 18th an 19th century bourgeoisie were the main beneficiaries of slavery. You're right though that the European and north American working class however did get a few more crumbs off the bosses' table. Though capitalism and its rapid industrialisation presented it's own particular hardships. English child millworkers with no shoes in the winter must havebeen well aware of the gravy train they were on.... as were the Cottonopolis mill workers who endured extreme hardship through their refusal to handle Confederate cotton.

Ultimately, slavery conflicted with the development of capitalism, which preferred the more profitable wage slavery to the more stagnant outright slavery.

Racism and discrimination is the issue today, not slavery (unless we're after some form of restitution from the likes of the Draxes). Yes white wc people do experience some privileges and black wc people definitely get a much rawer deal, but these so-called privileges are a millstone round the necks of black and white workers, another link in the capitalist chain to keep the working class divided, as is misogyny, sectarianism, homophbia, transphobia and all the other divide and rule shite.

Magnus McGinty is correct in that if workers don't fight, then we get nowt, as the ruling class never gives an inch without the threat of solid working class resistance.
 
And even of that 14% the question of whether it's terrorist is not a given. For some people it might count as a war crime but not terror, because for years we've been propagandised that "terrorism" is something done by non-government actors.

The fundamental though is that people's reactions are complex. There can be reactions involving agreement with the right, indeed duty, of an oppressed people to fight their tormentors which reject anything from none to all of the acts committed in the name of that cause over the course of the month. Some people might with varying degrees of reluctance agree with an act then refuse to go further, or change their verdict following new information. People and their views aren't just static numbers on a page with this stuff.

It's frankly quite puerile, and often counterproductive, to reduce those reactions to a binary position. We can see this playing out in simplistic for-or-agin lines of questioning dragging the quality of media debate on the topic like an albatross every night of the week.

There is also the big underlying problem of assuming that this is some kind of “attitude” — something stable and cognitive that can be activated in response to a question. I suspect that responses to this attack are far more emotional, confused and constructed in the moment based on what is salient. You could ask those same people a similar (but subtly different) question tomorrow and get a different set of responses.
 
There is also the big underlying problem of assuming that this is some kind of “attitude” — something stable and cognitive that can be activated in response to a question. I suspect that responses to this attack are far more emotional, confused and constructed in the moment based on what is salient. You could ask those same people a similar (but subtly different) question tomorrow and get a different set of responses.
Something that has even been reflected in the HoC mood with greater numbers of MPs feeling compelled to voice support for a ceasefire once the initial shock and empathy associated with the Hammas attack has been modified by the on-going horror of the Israeli state's response.
 
She conflates the duty to provide aid to civilians with providing aid to Hamas within the first couple of minutes of being interviewed and generally comes across as extremely partisan. You sure you're not just saying the interview's "good" because it hits notes you want to hear?
 
Given that 25% of Americans think the Hamas attacks were justified (1, 2) I reckon that lots of people on this thread do too, despite begrudgingly claiming otherwise.

Dunno about lots, but there are certainly some. Some not even trying very hard to conceal it. It's always been a stinky old potato for the left, and a big stumbling block for reasoned debate.
 
She conflates the duty to provide aid to civilians with providing aid to Hamas within the first couple of minutes of being interviewed and generally comes across as extremely partisan. You sure you're not just saying the interview's "good" because it hits notes you want to hear?

"UK lawyers for Israel". Yeah she's a bit partisan (and it goes a lot further than that, cba to type out her CV). Surprised PS didn't stick up her interview with Rees-Mogg on GB News.
 
Isn't it interesting that a little further down thread from people saying how outrageous it was to note the existence of grey areas in what counts as "civilian" in Israeli society we're getting an uncritical post featuring the suggestion that helping anybody in Gaza is de facto helping Hamas ...
 
Isn't it interesting that a little further down thread from people saying how outrageous it was to note the existence of grey areas in what counts as "civilian" in Israeli society we're getting an uncritical post featuring the suggestion that helping anybody in Gaza is de facto helping Hamas ...
It’s almost like there is no such thing as a neutral, objective presentation of information
 
Dunno about lots, but there are certainly some. Some not even trying very hard to conceal it. It's always been a stinky old potato for the left, and a big stumbling block for reasoned debate.
The fact of the matter is that we're here because of decisions made by zionist governments both in refusing to come to any form of just - in the broadest sense of the word - accommodation with the Palestinians, their decision to divide the west Bank administration from gaza, and the way gaza has been treated over many years. The attack, justifiable, the slaughter of Israeli soldiers - an obvious military target, the murder of people in kibbutzes and at the festival understandable tho as I have said vile and not something which is easily reconcilable with how we might hope Palestinian organisations would behave. Nonetheless, what hamas did does not justify war crimes and genocide by an alleged democracy and the facilitation of Israeli bombing of gaza, kidnapping of thousands of Palestinians and reprisals against people in Israeli prisons by Western governments will do little to prevent the situation becoming worse.
 
"UK lawyers for Israel". Yeah she's a bit partisan (and it goes a lot further than that, cba to type out her CV). Surprised PS didn't stick up her interview with Rees-Mogg on GB News.
She says Israel has no obligation to provide electricity to Hamas. Techcnially that may be so, I have no idea what the letter of the law is. But it ignores the fact that Israel has that power to begin with, and it ignores the rest of the people living in Gaza which, presumably, would then constitute collective punishment by any reasonable definition.

She also says that Israel warned Gaza to evacucate. Which again may be correct under the letter of the law, but she doesn't address (and isn't asked) where the peopulation are meant to go?

Or how mass bombing doesn't also target the hostages which by definition it must if your goal is to target Hamas. Where else woudl the hostages be if not with Hamas in their underhospital bunkers?
 
Back
Top Bottom