Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

What if there are next to no Palestinians left in Israel? That solves that, and that's the real military objective, and to my eyes clearly achievable.

Yes there can be a Palestinian military organisation based outside Israeli borders, but if ethnic cleansing is successful then on many a score Hamas can be 'annhiliated' from Israel at least.t
The Gaza Strip is not actualy in Israel, or though it is controlled by Israel.
 
I'm not going to get bothered about people waving flags on a ceasefire demonstration. What does concern me is supposed socialists throwing class politics completely out the window and lining up full and square behind nationalism. Not because of any ideological purity, rather the opposite, it is entirely pragmatic - because past history says that is a really dangerous road to go down.

National liberation today, social revolution tomorrow sounds like a sensible idea. If there was a good reason for believing the strategy worked I'd be all for it (and once upon a time I was). But as Spain (in Homage to Catalonia Orwell notes his ideological sympathy with the Communist position of aligning to fight the fascists, the problem being that in practice the dropping of class struggle was used to attack others), Algeria (as mentioned in the LRB piece), Iran, and loads of other examples show all too often it ends very badly for workers, especially the local socialists/communists.

That does not mean I'm arguing for nothing to be done, for people to simply sit about and sigh 'oh dear', socialists have to organise in the situation they have, not the situation that we would want.
Workers might be orientating around nationalism or populism and it is stupid and counter productive to simply discard people on that basis (and that applies not only in Palestine or Ukraine but also here). And national and/or populist struggles can be a way that working class expresses its itself against capital.
But some sort of notion of class struggle does need to me kept in mind. Not just for tomorrow but for today, for the feminist, queer and socialist Palestinians that are struggling not just against Israel but also Hamas.

(Not really directed at you hitmouse more just riffing off your post)
Yeah, and in a similar bit of riffing... I think I keep bringing up the Nakba in these kinds of discussions, which might get repetitive but I think if you're going to oppose Zionism (which you should!) then it's worth understanding Zionism, not just the obviously repugnant and disgusting Zionism of 2023 but the relatively attractive Zionism of 1947 or 1948. And to me, if nothing else, thinking about Zionism in 1948 shows that you can't just go "this group of people don't have a state to protect them, therefore them having a state would automatically be a good development, no matter what".
 
Yeah, and in a similar bit of riffing... I think I keep bringing up the Nakba in these kinds of discussions, which might get repetitive but I think if you're going to oppose Zionism (which you should!) then it's worth understanding Zionism, not just the obviously repugnant and disgusting Zionism of 2023 but the relatively attractive Zionism of 1947 or 1948. And to me, if nothing else, thinking about Zionism in 1948 shows that you can't just go "this group of people don't have a state to protect them, therefore them having a state would automatically be a good development, no matter what".

I would not agree with Zionism in 47/ 48 being relatively attractive. Compared to now.
 
I would not agree with Zionism in 47/ 48 being relatively attractive. Compared to now.

For me it's that in 1947/8 there was the potential, the possibility of making a place where there would be justice and equality for all. It may have been a delusion in the first place, or maybe with more effort it could have happened a better way - we can never know because all that's left of that potential now is ashes and pain.
 
I would not agree with Zionism in 47/ 48 being relatively attractive. Compared to now.
Well, there had just been this really big event that had made it seem necessary. It certainly made the argument in its favour rather more compelling even if it we still recognise it as wrong.
 
I would not agree with Zionism in 47/ 48 being relatively attractive. Compared to now.

What's happening now is a direct result of all those nice progressive zionists from 1948 waging their own campaign of ethnic cleansing. There have been no massive left turns in the history of Israel, Netanhayu is just finishing what Ben-Gurion and pals began.
 
Well, there had just been this really big event that had made it seem necessary. It certainly made the argument in its favour rather more compelling even if it we still recognise it as wrong.

Zionism pre dated WW2 holocaust.

Surviving Jews in displaced peoples camp were not being welcomed to other countries.

The UN partition plan was a disaster. To point where at one point US was thinking of putting it on hold.

So no holocaust did not necessarily mean it had to happen this way.

Plus this had been long term plan of Zionists from its early days. Removal of Palestinians in some way
 
Last edited:
For me it's that in 1947/8 there was the potential, the possibility of making a place where there would be justice and equality for all. It may have been a delusion in the first place, or maybe with more effort it could have happened a better way - we can never know because all that's left of that potential now is ashes and pain.

How? Those Labour Zionists like David Ben Gurion were not interested in justice and equality for Palestinians
 
Zionism pre dated WW2 holocaust.

Surviving Jews in displaced peoples camp were not being welcomed to other countries.

The UN partition plan was a disaster. To point where at one point US was thinking of putting it on hold.

So no holocaust did not necessarily mean it had to happen this way.

Plus this had been long term plan of Zionists from its early days. Removal of Palestinians in some way
Yes, I am fully aware of all that, thanks. But it does not alter the fact that following the Holocaust made support for Zionism at that time far more understandable for many people. I'm not talking about the rationale of political elites, but of people.
 
Yes, I am fully aware of all that, thanks. But it does not alter the fact that following the Holocaust made support for Zionism at that time far more understandable for many people. I'm not talking about the rationale of political elites, but of people.

Depends on what people you are talking about.
 
Yes, I am fully aware of all that, thanks. But it does not alter the fact that following the Holocaust made support for Zionism at that time far more understandable for many people. I'm not talking about the rationale of political elites, but of people.
And it still is for a lot of people. I saw something yesterday that described the 1967 borders as "Auschwitz borders." My first thought was that this was a disgusting exercise in the exploitation of a gross crime. . . and I still think that. But it's also an exercise that will have traction with a lot of people, and this is where you reach the limits of "Israel is a settler colony." There was no Rhodesian Auschwitz. The Boers did get put in concentration camps, but those didn't have gas chambers.
 
For me it's that in 1947/8 there was the potential, the possibility of making a place where there would be justice and equality for all. It may have been a delusion in the first place, or maybe with more effort it could have happened a better way - we can never know because all that's left of that potential now is ashes and pain.
Not in 1948
 
The words of shame.

"Explanation of vote by Ambassador Barbara Woodward at the UN Security Council meeting on Gaza."

As pointed out at the march today, since the end of the last pause, Israel's daily murder rate has been 40 per cent higher than it was pre-pause. Fuck 'pauses'.
 
Today's Financial Times had a slightly weird story about the Bank of Palestine rescuing its cash reserves from bombed-out northern Gaza and bringing them in a convoy to the south of the strip, where a handful of banks and ATMs are still working.

I say this is slightly weird because this was (apparently) done with Israeli cooperation. Not sure what the angle is there, tbh.
 
Haaretz analysis by Yagil Levy (sociology prof at open university of Israel) on the high proportion of civilians casualties. 61%, using what I think most on here would say are fairly conservative estimates (it only analyses the air attacks from 7th-26th Oct, allows 10% casualties for Hamas misfires etc). As the graun (from which I obviously got the link) points out; 'The ratio is significantly higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead'. That comparison has its flaws of course, but isn't the main thrust of the article. Which comes to the conclusion that this all seems very deliberate. The author uses the bleak phrase 'collateral benefit'; i.e the deaths of militants are the happy outcome of the slaughter of civilians. Also gives a quiet hint that pilots should probably mutiny. Have only skimmed the article itself as got things to do:

 
Zionism pre dated WW2 holocaust.
Stephen Sizer the C of E vicar who is banned from ministry until 2030, following a complaint against him by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, says this:
"Lord Shaftesbury argued for a greater British presence in Palestine and saw this could be achieved by the sponsorship of a Jewish homeland on both religious and political grounds. British protection of the Jews would give a colonial advantage over France for the control of the Middle East; provide better access to India via a direct land route; and open up new commercial markets for British products.

In 1839, Shaftesbury wrote an anonymous 30 page article for the Quarterly Review, entitled ‘State and Restauration (sic) of the Jews.’ In it Shaftesbury advocated a Jewish national homeland with Jerusalem the capital, remaining under Turkish rule but with British protection. Shaftesbury predicted a new era for the Jews:

‘ … the Jews must be encouraged to return in yet greater numbers and become once more the husbandman of Judea and Galilee … though admittedly a stiff-necked, dark hearted people, and sunk in moral degradation, obduracy, and ignorance of the Gospel … [They are] … not only worthy of salvation but also vital to Christianity’s hope of salvation."

Clearly Sizer, who is a Christian fundamentalist is inclined to conspiracy style reasoning (extrapolating God's wishes - in somewhat similar style to Zionists actually) - is totally opposed to Christian Zionism - which he claims is supported by 40 million American Christian Zionist voters (vs Jewish American voters less than 8 million). Mike Pence is a classic Christian Zionist. Billy Graham was anti Christian Zionist, Jerry Falwell had an executive jet loaned to him by Menachem Begin.

Fully expecting to get shot down for posting this - but personally I would lay the blame for what has happened with Zionism on the Protestant Reformation followed by the Great Awakening - a succession of religious revivals in UK and USA particularly, culminating in the Zionist movement. The first World Zionist Congress was held in 1897, some years before Nazism was invented - although admittedly there had been pogroms in Russia in the 1880s, which no doubt would have been a factor.

Edited to remove 4 dead links
 
Haaretz analysis by Yagil Levy (sociology prof at open university of Israel) on the high proportion of civilians casualties. 61%, using what I think most on here would say are fairly conservative estimates (it only analyses the air attacks from 7th-26th Oct, allows 10% casualties for Hamas misfires etc).

To get to that figure he also appears to be counting all males from 18 to 59 as combatants.
 
And it still is for a lot of people. I saw something yesterday that described the 1967 borders as "Auschwitz borders." My first thought was that this was a disgusting exercise in the exploitation of a gross crime. . . and I still think that. But it's also an exercise that will have traction with a lot of people, and this is where you reach the limits of "Israel is a settler colony." There was no Rhodesian Auschwitz. The Boers did get put in concentration camps, but those didn't have gas chambers.

Which is why I think using historical term like settler colonialism and international legal defined terms like ethnic cleansing are applicable to State of Israel.

As Ilan Pappe said settler colonialism is a big subject. It differs depending on local factors.

Using these definitions is also way of not being anti Semitic. It's saying that this has happened across the world by different systems.

As Ilan Pappe said one of the things about Zionism is that it's settler colonialism came historically late in the day

It also helps point way out of the conflict which would, as Pappe says, involves accepting what actually happened. Decolonising Israel to place where Jews and Palestinians can live together in one country.

The idea of settler colonialism put forward by Pappe and other historians was at odds against the history he was taught when growing up in Israel.

So I'd say it's important and relevant definition. That's not about expelling Israeli Jews. But a different sort of country

It's also preferable imo to using terms like genocide or the frequent comparison with Nazis. Which are politically loaded considering Jewish history.
 
Last edited:
Look on twitter, and you'll see a lot of wankers think the answer is to expel the Israelis back to Europe . . . I don't know who these people think they're helping, but it's not the Palestinians.

Which is another problem with a lot of current "decolonial" chatter, and not only in relation to Israel/Palestine - the opportunity to strike a radical posture is more important than actually thinking through what the concrete realities of the situation are.

A lot of Israelis are fleeing, apparently, emigrant numbers are exceeding those for immigration - but that's going to leave the hard core behind, the unreconstructed bitter-enders.

As Israel becomes more and more isolated over the next few years, you can see the die-hards deciding that the other lot can die harder.
 
Look on twitter, and you'll see a lot of wankers think the answer is to expel the Israelis back to Europe . . . I don't know who these people think they're helping, but it's not the Palestinians.

Which is another problem with a lot of current "decolonial" chatter, and not only in relation to Israel/Palestine - the opportunity to strike a radical posture is more important than actually thinking through what the concrete realities of the situation are.

A lot of Israelis are fleeing, apparently, emigrant numbers are exceeding those for immigration - but that's going to leave the hard core behind, the unreconstructed bitter-enders.

As Israel becomes more and more isolated over the next few years, you can see the die-hards deciding that the other lot can die harder.
I doubt those fleeing as you put it will be a significant enough number to change the demographic significantly.
Isolation is also a bt of a non problem for Israel, the major political powers continue to back them and I honestly don't see that changing.
 
Look on twitter, and you'll see a lot of wankers think the answer is to expel the Israelis back to Europe . . . I don't know who these people think they're helping, but it's not the Palestinians.

Which is another problem with a lot of current "decolonial" chatter, and not only in relation to Israel/Palestine - the opportunity to strike a radical posture is more important than actually thinking through what the concrete realities of the situation are.

A lot of Israelis are fleeing, apparently, emigrant numbers are exceeding those for immigration - but that's going to leave the hard core behind, the unreconstructed bitter-enders.

As Israel becomes more and more isolated over the next few years, you can see the die-hards deciding that the other lot can die harder.

Israel is run by die hards now. I don't see how it can get much worse for Palestinians


Says that emigration rise/ looking into emigration by getting EU passport pre dated Hamas attack. It was due to rise of right in Israel. And the subsequent protests. Not directly the Palestine issue.

Getting an EU passport was a good insurance back up.

So its not the fault of "decolonial chatter" making life in Israel so untenable that people feel they need to leave

"Decolonial chatter" You are mixing up twitter with the work of respected Israeli Jewish and Palestinian historians.

They have studied the concrete reality of what happened and how it effects today.

I dont read much Twitter as its not helpful.

Historically people have left Israel before. In 60s when there was economic downturn.

A younger generation might see an Israel run by hard right as not somewhere they want to live. Like my Polish friends who came here. Preferred living in UK than a Poland run by socially conservative governments.

I dont see Israel being isolated in sense of political and military aid. US and UK plus some EU countries support Israel in various ways. I do not see this ending soon. So no I do not see Israel being isolated any time soon in a practical sense. World public opinion yes due to the bombing of Gaza.
 
Last edited:
1702159328706.png

No idea who’s behind this but it’s being shared a bit on Twitter. Seems a little privileged to me to expect people who can’t afford it to not leave the house on Monday…
 
Back
Top Bottom