Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Haven't seen it but knowing Morgan I'd assume it was more a case of Corbyn not letting himself be derailed by endless, 'yeah but Hamas are evil though right?' whataboutery.

In any case Corbyn is an idiot for going on Morgan's show in the first place.

I think a failing of Corbyn is that he thinks everyone is capable of reasonable discourse. A proper discussion.

That is not what a lot of media is about. And he walks right into it.

In my opinion its not a big failing. Goes to show how nasty it is.
 
and he should have just said "yes they are ... can I make my point now please?"

He could certainly learn to be a bit better at game-playing with this kind of stuff. Then again I think a big part of why so many people respect him is that he doesn't play games. Like Gramsci says he operates on the assumption that everyone he speaks to is on some level a reasonable person, or at least capable of being one.
 
He could certainly learn to be a bit better at game-playing with this kind of stuff. Then again I think a big part of why so many people respect him is that he doesn't play games. Like Gramsci says he operates on the assumption that everyone he speaks to is on some level a reasonable person, or at least capable of being one.

I made myself watch the interview with Piers Morgan.

You are right he should never have agreed to be on the show.

Piers is an attack dog. Corbyn flounders and loses it.

I was holding my head in my hands when Len Mcluskey told Piers he was a bully.
 
He could certainly learn to be a bit better at game-playing with this kind of stuff. Then again I think a big part of why so many people respect him is that he doesn't play games. Like Gramsci says he operates on the assumption that everyone he speaks to is on some level a reasonable person, or at least capable of being one.
I don't think Corbyn is an idiot; I do think he overlooks the bad faith intentions of the likes of Morgan et al, and is therefore too inclined to give cunts like Morgan the benefit of the doubt. However, I agree that he should have avoided Morgan's show.
 
I was looking at the IHRA example of anti semitism.

Its this one I have problem with:


Seeing what is happening in Gaza now and reading the history of Israel I disagree with this example.

Im not saying all Israelis are racist. It is not anyone's fault the country they are born in.

But is the State racist? Yes from its very inception.
'
 
I don't think Corbyn is an idiot; I do think he overlooks the bad faith intentions of the likes of Morgan et al, and is therefore too inclined to give cunts like Morgan the benefit of the doubt. However, I agree that he should have avoided Morgan's show.
During the 2019 debates the unpleasant subject of Prince Andrew came up . . . which led to Corbyn mentioning Jeffrey Epstein by name. I wish he'd had more sense than to do that.
 
Here is the Tribune article


Must say Tribune ( the magazine of the Socialist Campaign Group) are pushing it a bit publishing Corbyn. Think they have been emboldened by the mass protests for a ceasefire.

Yes it is a good article.

Him being accused of not condemning Hamas on Piers show. I have not watched that but these continual attacks on Corbyn are appalling imo. Hes been maligned and treated as a political pariah

His Tribune article has links to where he condemned Hamas attack.



And






What he actually says on record rather than the media assuming what he thinks does sound reasonable.

What he actually thinks is a measured response.

But that does not make headlines.


To quote my own post now Ive seen the Piers Morgan "interview" Piers deliberately went forward from asking the obligatory do you condemn Hamas attack to asking/ telling him tosay Hamas is a Terror organization and should have no part in Gaza in future.

So it wasn't enough for Piers if Corbyn reiterated what he has said before. Piers obviously had seen that when Corbyn has raised issue of ceasefire he has condemned the attack and called for war crimes investigations of both sides.

No that's not enough Piers was pushing him to go further.
 
Last edited:
Giora Eiland wrote this a few weeks ago.
Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf. In order for this to happen, Israel needs to demand four key points with greater determination than ever before:

1. The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf. From our perspective, every building in Gaza known to have Hamas headquarters underneath, including schools and hospitals, is considered a military target.

2. Every vehicle in Gaza is considered a military vehicle transporting combatants. Therefore, there is no vehicular traffic, and it does not matter whether it is transporting water or other critical supplies.

3. The UN secretary-general has initiated humanitarian aid to Gaza. The Israeli condition for any aid should be a visit by the Red Cross to Israeli hostages and especially the civilians among them. Until this happens, no aid of any kind will be permitted to enter into Gaza.

4. Intermediators with both diplomatic and military experience will be required to explain in detail these concepts to the rest of the world. It will not be possible to remove Hamas without exerting pressure and if the Americans do not receive a clear and detailed explanation from Israeli officials and understand that Israel has no choice. It is comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to the launch of an atomic bomb in Japan.

As a result, Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist, and I say this as a means rather than an end. I say this because there is no other option for ensuring the security of the State of Israel. We are fighting an existential war.
 

All of it is garbage and clearly advocates major and deliberate breaches of international law, but the bit that starts "the collapse of Germany at the beginning of 1945 was mainly due to the loss of Romania's oil fields, and once Germany didn't have enough fuel for its tanks and planes - the war was won" is really strange.
 
Giora Eiland wrote this a few weeks ago.
According to Wikipedia, his position was once different:
"Eiland regularly writes op-ed articles in Yediot Aharonot. In these he reiterates two specific interlinked ideas. Eiland calls for Israel to recognise Hamas as the effective government of the Gaza Strip and cease any attempt to topple Hamas or facilitate restoration of Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza."
 
All of it is garbage and clearly advocates major and deliberate breaches of international law, but the bit that starts "the collapse of Germany at the beginning of 1945 was mainly due to the loss of Romania's oil fields, and once Germany didn't have enough fuel for its tanks and planes - the war was won" is really strange.
Why is it strange? Tbh I never knew about Romanian oilfields until I searched just now and it turns out they were crucial to Germany in the 2nd world war:
Petrochemical industry in Romania - Wikipedia /derail
 
Why is it strange? Tbh I never knew about Romanian oilfields until I searched just now and it turns out they were crucial to Germany in the 2nd world war:
Petrochemical industry in Romania - Wikipedia /derail

I'd have thought the ten million armed men, tens of thousands of tanks / artillery / aircraft and overwhelming economic, industrial and military might ranged against them by most of the rest of the world were a lot more effective than the loss of fuel was.
 
According to Wikipedia, his position was once different:
"Eiland regularly writes op-ed articles in Yediot Aharonot. In these he reiterates two specific interlinked ideas. Eiland calls for Israel to recognise Hamas as the effective government of the Gaza Strip and cease any attempt to topple Hamas or facilitate restoration of Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza."
Not out-of-step with policies discussed in this Intercept article (I think it was posted on this thread before)

Segev later told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referred to Hamas as “a creature of Israel.”)
...
To be clear: First, the Israelis helped build up a militant strain of Palestinian political Islam, in the form of Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood precursors; then, the Israelis switched tack and tried to bomb, besiege, and blockade it out of existence.

 
  • Like
Reactions: PTK
Why is it strange? Tbh I never knew about Romanian oilfields until I searched just now and it turns out they were crucial to Germany in the 2nd world war:
Petrochemical industry in Romania - Wikipedia /derail

They were very much a second effort. His primary target was Azerbaijan and it can be argued his failure there contributed to losing the war.

Someone even made him a birthday cake with Baku the prize.

1700473891833.png

//derail
 
I posted an article about this last night but there was no helicopter vid then. Interestingly I notice the boat seems to be mostly empty of cargo, at least the deck that was filmed anyway.
Feel like I'm going mad. No one seems to think it's fake.
 
Back
Top Bottom