Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

These ridiculous semantics have thoroughly put me off supporting Labour in a way I've not felt since the Iraq war. I desperately want the Tories out, but how can I put my cross in the box and support Starmer? I'd previously not understood folks that don't vote, but fucking hell, what a pitiful shower we have to choose from.
To be fair, if your MP voted against genocide, might be worth supporting.
 
These ridiculous semantics have thoroughly put me off supporting Labour in a way I've not felt since the Iraq war. I desperately want the Tories out, but how can I put my cross in the box and support Starmer? I'd previously not understood folks that don't vote, but fucking hell, what a pitiful shower we have to choose from.
Well at least we get a choice in the next general election: Will you vote blue Tories, red Tories or yellow Tories.
 
Who the fuck votes against, or abstains from voting for, that?

People who agree with Starmer that stopping the violence might inhibit the peace process that's definitely gonna start any minute now.

Because that's the official line. A ceasefire might interfere with the peace process. These are people who put themselves across as the reasonable, sensible, middle-ground adults in the room. And they're saying stuff that's batshit fucking insane.
 
Last edited:
a conditional ceasefire like this seems highly partisan. I don't know whether Hamas would exploit or abuse a ceasefire, but given the vengefeul nature of the IDF and bourgesioise opinion, it would do them no favours.

Hamas would likely see that demand as them conceding any leverage they have, although at this point the hostages (if any have survived the bombing), will be the only living things in Gaza
I'm not totally sure what you mean here. The calls for a ceasefire are very literal, no? Stop firing. Only one side is firing right now. Only one side is flattening buildings, bombing hospitals and killing babies. How many Israeli civilians has Hamas killed since October 7? What would they do if Israel were to stop bombing Gaza and withdraw its troops from Gaza today, immediately? What could they do? What state do you think Hamas are in, logistically?
 
People who agree with Starmer that stopping the violence might inhibit the peace process that's definitely gonna start any minute now.

Because that's the official line. A ceasefire might interfere with the peace process. These are people who put themselves across as the reasonable, sensible, middle-ground adults in the room. But they're saying stuff that's batshit fucking insane.
He might have changed it now, but up until a couple of days ago, Starmer's official line was that Israel was entitled to go after Hamas and that for them to stop going after Hamas would risk a repeat of 7 October. Also batshit fucking insane, of course. Meanwhile, his spokespeople seem to think that it's too early to say for sure whether or not Israel has broken international law.
 
Al Jazeera report that the Qatari authorities are attempting to broker a deal whereby some of the hostages are released in return for a three-day ceasefire. Seems the Israelis haven't flat refused.

Are Israel and Hamas nearing a ‘hostage’ deal? What to know

This would be good, of course. Whatever it takes to stop the killing. But Israel should stop killing people. Full stop. Regardless. They're more or less up to the formula of 10 Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed now. Perhaps that is why they are listening to ideas.
 
ITV News@10 just reported (from Tel Aviv) that the Israeli state is now leafletting Southern Gaza telling people to move out because they are in danger.

Utter cunts.
There was a PBS programme on Channel 84 earlier on today quoting David Ben Gurion explaining they had to kill a few Palestinians to make the rest of them flee the land (in 1948!).
This is a long term project which the USA in particular has connived in.
 


Had a look at that twitter and this came up as well



This does not surprise me. Living in Lambeth run by right of party I see how they go on.

Id say my MP Helen Hayes is what I call the "hand wringing" tendency in the party.

Not on the right/ did not like Corbyn but when push comes to shove on a serious issue like this is at a loss what to do. So resorts to "hand wringing"

Big long speech about how terrible is all is but cannot actually bring herself to vote for ceasefire whilst supporting one.

Im only a MP my constituents are bombarding me with emails to support a ceasefire and its all so difficult. Im only an MP with a vote in the commons. This is the gist of it.

And they can get offended if you don't like this. As they are such nice people who really care.

In my experience of dealing with Labour party in my area this is how it works.
 

Lists the MPs who voted for the ceasefire - SNP amendment.

Says there was a three line whip to not vote for it.

Some still defied this. Im sure Starmer and his entourage have noted who these MPs are.

This piece of work said the following:

Meanwhile Luke Akehurst, a member of Labour’s national executive commitee and secretary of party moderates grouping Labour First, said: “Not impressed by resigners from frontbench. Labour MPs should show moral leadership to their constituents and stand with Israel as it fights Hamas.”

So killing civilians , invading hospitals is ok if Israel does it. That is the leadership position.
 
Wow. You can't ask for a ceasefire until you have a deal where the hostages are released? So they basically think Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians is justified by the fact that Hamas are holding hostages. That's the only logical conclusion to draw from that statement.

Wankers.
Of course a ceasefire agreement is more than likely to increase a commitment to release hostages. This person is very ignorant.
 

According to this analysis he did not want a fight over this. I disagree. Its consistent with way he has been leader since he started.

This time it didn't work.

One unnamed source said they thought the party was a diverse one and he should have listened.

Its not how he has been running it. The opposite in fact.

Supporting Israel whatever it does and treating Palestinians as not worth the bother might be his way of saying he's a grown up politician unlike Corbyn but it hasn't gone down well in well significant sector of UK. He thought he had expelled those who support Palestinians from anything to do with the party
 
According to this analysis he did not want a fight over this. I disagree. Its consistent with way he has been leader since he started.
absolutely its a laughable bit of "analysis" - it is literally the only fight he has been fighting since he took over leadership of the labour party - muscularly proving to be on the same page on key issues as a jewish chronicle editorial - disagree and get chucked out of the party - mass expulsions are the hallmark from day one and continue literally to this day - defleaing the dog according to his allies - utterly consistent.

Guardian running a piece saying he's bruised poor thing and never wanted this is either clever spin or just dumb reporting. Would it be too much to hope this is his undoing, because far from this moment about to fade out the total expulsion/starvation/killing of all Palestinians will take a while yet, by which time any volte face from Starmer will convince no one, and a general election isn't as far away enough to escape Netenyahu's life's work long 'war'.

The article also suggests Rayner is letting Starmer take the flack for it - maneuvering for a future leadership bid? I can picture that....however she voted against the ceasefire also, so this just sounds like more pro-starmer spin tbh.

anyhow it all seems in bad taste to talk about internal labour party shite when hundreds of thousands of people are slowly being killed like this.
 

Lists the MPs who voted for the ceasefire - SNP amendment.

Says there was a three line whip to not vote for it.

Some still defied this. Im sure Starmer and his entourage have noted who these MPs are.

This piece of work said the following:



So killing civilians , invading hospitals is ok if Israel does it. That is the leadership position.
luke akehurst a moderate? :D
 
anyhow it all seems in bad taste to talk about internal labour party shite when hundreds of thousands of people are slowly being killed like this.

Agree with rest of post but do think this is relevant as Starmer is going to be next PM. So will control foreign policy.

In which case will have PM who disagrees with saying Israel is Apartheid state, opposes BDS and equates anti Zionism with antisemitism

Palestinian people need pressure from other governments to help them.

With him in power that's not going to happen.

 
Agree with rest of post but do think this is relevant as Starmer is going to be next PM. So will control foreign policy.

In which case will have PM who disagrees with saying Israel is Apartheid state, opposes BDS and equates anti Zionism with antisemitism

Palestinian people need pressure from other governments to help them.

With him in power that's not going to happen.

let's not get ahead of ourselves as i think the chances of a tory win might not be as remote as is widely believed. after all, many people who formerly took scant notice of shammer have started to and there is yet the election campaign to come in which he will present himself to the public on a daily basis. many potential labour voters will recoil in horror and disgust from him.
 
_131748855_jostevens1.png.webp
,
 
opportunity for a labour purge

View attachment 400346
Taking an Israeli stance I see.
Why can’t these fucks just be honest and perhaps look at their western imperialist world view. These cunts are the problem.
Fed up with these crocodile tears from the most entitled fuckheads who directly have influence on peoples lives and they can’t even take a bit of graffiti without having throw all their toys out of the pram.
Pathetic. Fragile. Entitled. Scared and witless. Isnotreal
 
absolutely its a laughable bit of "analysis" - it is literally the only fight he has been fighting since he took over leadership of the labour party - muscularly proving to be on the same page on key issues as a jewish chronicle editorial - disagree and get chucked out of the party - mass expulsions are the hallmark from day one and continue literally to this day - defleaing the dog according to his allies - utterly consistent.

Guardian running a piece saying he's bruised poor thing and never wanted this is either clever spin or just dumb reporting. Would it be too much to hope this is his undoing, because far from this moment about to fade out the total expulsion/starvation/killing of all Palestinians will take a while yet, by which time any volte face from Starmer will convince no one, and a general election isn't as far away enough to escape Netenyahu's life's work long 'war'.

The article also suggests Rayner is letting Starmer take the flack for it - maneuvering for a future leadership bid? I can picture that....however she voted against the ceasefire also, so this just sounds like more pro-starmer spin tbh.

anyhow it all seems in bad taste to talk about internal labour party shite when hundreds of thousands of people are slowly being killed like this.
No, Rayner abstained. No Labour MP voted against, the majority abstained.

To be clear, I'm not justifying this. I'm furious about it. Just think it's important to be accurate.

how MPs voted re a ceasefire
 
Would be interested in our resident military experts view on the " weapons caches" apparently found at Shifa hospital.(Have heard it suggested that the magazines arrayed on a table are likely to be Israeli army issue for example.)
 
Back
Top Bottom