Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
- Thread starter PR1Berske
- Start date
I’m not sure that instantly resolves things, generous as your offer is.
I get the feeling that there are several people who want to start an argument but don't want anybody to argue back and there's not much one can do about that. Certainly not all - there are at least two posters who really know their stuff who have said that they don't have the energy to post on this. I think it is worth everybody (including me) to at least try to create a less draining atmosphere.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
I definitely think it's worth having other threads to cover other specific aspects of the conflict - there's the West Bank one, the UK protests one (and various ones covering specific demos), the international protests one, and feel free to create any others that you think haven't been done yet. I tend to post more on those ones cos I find them easier to follow, and also cos I'm more familiar with some of the subject matter, I think those smaller threads have tended to be a bit less aggy as well for the most part.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Maybe a temporary moratorium on accusations of either anti-semitism or enabling genocide* would be worth a go for a bit.
* - reasonable disclaimers apply
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Dunno. I don't think anyone should be stopped posting anything. I'd rather things were called out - but by attacking the content not the poster's mental health. Boris posted something pretty outrageous and got called out by at least 7 people* - which is fine but a couple of those people weren't specific about attacking the content, rather they attacked the health of that poster. Like these two.
I work with those with chaotic lifestyles and I've never seen one instance where sarcasm is helpful or positive for any of them.
I thought it was kind of a rule that we tried not to attack health, but content?
* 8 if you now include me.
I work with those with chaotic lifestyles and I've never seen one instance where sarcasm is helpful or positive for any of them.
I thought it was kind of a rule that we tried not to attack health, but content?
* 8 if you now include me.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think I’ve gone and created a conflation of a moan about the conduct of the thread the specific case of what Boris said and the response, which wasn’t my intention.
Regardless, I agree with the “play the ball, not the man” angle.
Israel jails teen for opposing army draft
Tal Mitnick is the first Israeli conscientious objector to be imprisoned since Oct. 7. He explains why the current war has only reaffirmed his convictions.
www.972mag.com
andysays
Love and solidarity
I'm going to answer this and then, providing the poster concerned doesn't post any more objectionable shit, leave it there.
My post about his "chaotic life" was an echo of the excuse the poster themselves used when called on on a previous series of antisemitic posts. Here's a quote of post 9101 on this thread.
And here's my response to that post, 9105
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
I agree with you re the other threads: for example I profoundly disagree with Assange in his attitude to women, but having examined the allegations in detail (and written about them) am convinced he was set up by the CIA in which dishonourable enterprise the Guardian (Rusbridger/Davies) were complicit. Yet the thread on Assange is full of such agressive vitriol I wouldnt dream of posting there.
I find this thread useful for informative articles and updates linked to. The tone is far less vile than the Assange thread, so Comrade Gramsci you definitely have a point.
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
Haaretz did an article about him too:Israel jails teen for opposing army draft
Tal Mitnick is the first Israeli conscientious objector to be imprisoned since Oct. 7. He explains why the current war has only reaffirmed his convictions.
https://archive.ph/aRK7w
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Just finished reading this.
www.versobooks.com
Its mercifully short at just over 200 pages but packs a lot of detail in.
For the beginning of the context of this conflict Id say its invaluable.
Its putting the context of the Balfour declaration / Mandate in the larger history of Inter Imperial rivalry/ demise of the Ottoman Empire and development of capitalism/ modernisation of economy.
Regan puts forward that British interest in Palestine was driven by needs of Empire. Suez canal was crucial to Empire as link to India and trade route. Also oil was becoming more important ( naval ships converted to oil from coal) and Palestine had access to sea.
Imperialism had changed from occupying land to have influence over it. Zionist settlers would provide an outpost of Europeans sympathetic to Empires needs.
THe Ottoman Empire had started some modernisation. Land ownership had been changed. However there were existing elites of notables whose position was not questioned until collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
The fall of Ottoman Empire led those elites to believe they would post WW1 get self determination. This didn't happen. Worse the Mandates agreed between French And British arbitrarily carved up the middle east.
Palestine had been envisaged as part of Greater Syria - Palestine/ Lebanon/ Syria. This didn't happen. Reading the appalling way it was carved up and self determination squashed cant help but think some of the issues in Middle East today can be traced back to the bungling way French and British Imperialism behaved.
Knowledge of the Balfour Declaration was known to Arabs early on. Even before Mandate was finally agreed they were sending delegations to Europe to oppose the wording of the Mandate- which favoured Zionism. Brits seemed to think Arabs didn't follow political developments like this.
So Palestine found itself part of Empire. Development came but was skewed in favour of Zionists. Palestinian elites floundered. Finding themselves unable to work with British. Normally in British Empire local elites would be coopted. Local capitalism as well. Instead they found themselves second to Zionists.
Occasional trouble led to numerous reports. Which were ignored by British Cabinets. As per usual with British Empire the reports would say correctly that Palestinian grievances were valid but nothing was done to rectify them. For example small farmers who were broke would end up unemployed in towns as the growing Zionist business sector would not employ non Jews.
A (small) Palestinian working class was developing as well as middle class. Newspapers were developing.
The old notables of the Ottoman period were not getting anywhere. A more radical opposition grew with the new social layers joining. Leading to the Arab Revolt. An armed uprising. Based around local committees. A form of organising seen in recent Intifada. Some of those involved were Pan Arabists from other parts of Middle East. As they saw Palestine as part of larger area.
And this revolt was aimed at the British not the Zionists.
Religion does not feature that much in this. Not that this was completely secular society. He goes into the growing political presence of Palestinian woman during Mandate. The main issues were land / self determination / development of economy/ immigration of Jews. Land being a major issue. The poverty of peasantry and loss of land was ongoing grievance. Which the British did not address.
He's arguing in his book that under the Mandate Palestine went through dramatic changes in a short period of time. Social/ Economic and political.
The other major change was growth in Zionist /Jewish business. Inward investment brought in through Zionism. On Zionist side the skills and knowledge from European migrants brought development. But Palestinians were excluded from it.
There is one point in book where a Palestinian delegation meet Churchill to voice concerns about Mandate and Balfour declaration. He told them not to concern themselves as the British would be their for years. Self government would not be in place in his lifetime. This was typical attitude of the the time. Britains civilizing mission in later Empire always was that at some point when ready people would have self government. But it always was years ahead.
The Balfour Declaration
On November 2, 1917, the British government, represented by Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour, declared that they were in favor of 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' This short note would be one of the most controversial documents of its time. A hundred...
www.versobooks.com
Its mercifully short at just over 200 pages but packs a lot of detail in.
For the beginning of the context of this conflict Id say its invaluable.
Its putting the context of the Balfour declaration / Mandate in the larger history of Inter Imperial rivalry/ demise of the Ottoman Empire and development of capitalism/ modernisation of economy.
Regan puts forward that British interest in Palestine was driven by needs of Empire. Suez canal was crucial to Empire as link to India and trade route. Also oil was becoming more important ( naval ships converted to oil from coal) and Palestine had access to sea.
Imperialism had changed from occupying land to have influence over it. Zionist settlers would provide an outpost of Europeans sympathetic to Empires needs.
THe Ottoman Empire had started some modernisation. Land ownership had been changed. However there were existing elites of notables whose position was not questioned until collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
The fall of Ottoman Empire led those elites to believe they would post WW1 get self determination. This didn't happen. Worse the Mandates agreed between French And British arbitrarily carved up the middle east.
Palestine had been envisaged as part of Greater Syria - Palestine/ Lebanon/ Syria. This didn't happen. Reading the appalling way it was carved up and self determination squashed cant help but think some of the issues in Middle East today can be traced back to the bungling way French and British Imperialism behaved.
Knowledge of the Balfour Declaration was known to Arabs early on. Even before Mandate was finally agreed they were sending delegations to Europe to oppose the wording of the Mandate- which favoured Zionism. Brits seemed to think Arabs didn't follow political developments like this.
So Palestine found itself part of Empire. Development came but was skewed in favour of Zionists. Palestinian elites floundered. Finding themselves unable to work with British. Normally in British Empire local elites would be coopted. Local capitalism as well. Instead they found themselves second to Zionists.
Occasional trouble led to numerous reports. Which were ignored by British Cabinets. As per usual with British Empire the reports would say correctly that Palestinian grievances were valid but nothing was done to rectify them. For example small farmers who were broke would end up unemployed in towns as the growing Zionist business sector would not employ non Jews.
A (small) Palestinian working class was developing as well as middle class. Newspapers were developing.
The old notables of the Ottoman period were not getting anywhere. A more radical opposition grew with the new social layers joining. Leading to the Arab Revolt. An armed uprising. Based around local committees. A form of organising seen in recent Intifada. Some of those involved were Pan Arabists from other parts of Middle East. As they saw Palestine as part of larger area.
And this revolt was aimed at the British not the Zionists.
Religion does not feature that much in this. Not that this was completely secular society. He goes into the growing political presence of Palestinian woman during Mandate. The main issues were land / self determination / development of economy/ immigration of Jews. Land being a major issue. The poverty of peasantry and loss of land was ongoing grievance. Which the British did not address.
He's arguing in his book that under the Mandate Palestine went through dramatic changes in a short period of time. Social/ Economic and political.
The other major change was growth in Zionist /Jewish business. Inward investment brought in through Zionism. On Zionist side the skills and knowledge from European migrants brought development. But Palestinians were excluded from it.
There is one point in book where a Palestinian delegation meet Churchill to voice concerns about Mandate and Balfour declaration. He told them not to concern themselves as the British would be their for years. Self government would not be in place in his lifetime. This was typical attitude of the the time. Britains civilizing mission in later Empire always was that at some point when ready people would have self government. But it always was years ahead.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't want to continue this particularly, but this is nonsense. You're not challenging antisemitism here. You've having a dig.
Have a word with yourself.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Slightly bonkers preview of the interview with the young lady kidnapped from the music festival and released a month or so ago by Hamas.
'Everyone in Gaza is a terrorist'. 'I've been through a holocaust'
Being kidnapped, seeing those around you murdered and being victim of physical, emotional and quite possibly sexual abuse, is quite likely to turn you "slightly bonkers".
All in all, a patronising and misogynistic post displaying a depressing lack of empathy. She was the victim of a vile crime, just as those Palestinians being bombed and starved in Gaza are.
Last edited:
PursuedByBears
Go stick your head in a pig
You're absolutely right, I shouldn't have said that, I was a bit pissed. Sorry everyone, sorry Boris Sprinkler
How in the fuck is that 'misogynistic'? I don't care what gender you are. Labelling an entire nation as terrorists, a nation currently being absolutely destroyed by your own government - whom she apparently is also a massive fan of.
I'm aware she went through a traumatic episode. But sorry, 'everyone in Gaza is a terrorist'? No. They're not. It's not like she did this interview off the cuff in the heat of the moment. She's composed and prepared as she spills this shit to Israel's main broadcaster in primetime.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
She extends her hatred for those who kidnapped her onto all Palestinians.
I'm not going to have a go at her for how she feels. I'll absolutely judge those who chose her for prime time propaganda interviews, though.
I'm surprised I have to make this point but seems like it do. How many people do you think they interviewed, and why do you think they chose her?
Last edited:
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
I find it odd that captured Israel's are hostages and the Palestinians rounded up and throw in prison are referred to as prisoners.
Upon their release, the freed Palestinian females that got out spoke about the ongoing torture and rape they were subjected to.
Although I can sympathize with the Hamas hostages, Israel is just as bad. Actually I could say the captured Palestinians are being treated worse.
So, before you get all high and mighty, maybe you should look into the Israel abuse of their prisoners. No side is without fault.
Indeed. It's also indicative that the IDF actually arrested and imprisoned more Palestinians during that 'ceasefire' than they released in exchange for the hostages. They release a bunch of teenage boys and women and simultaneously arrest a shitload more to fill the cells recently vacated. Filth.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
.
I was Criticising Petcha's victim blaming not seeking to defend the crimes of the Israeli regime.
There will be tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who will be similarly angry and hate filled as the woman in that broadcast after all they have experienced and continue to experience. I wouldn't blame them for having those feelings.
I was Criticising Petcha's victim blaming not seeking to defend the crimes of the Israeli regime.
There will be tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who will be similarly angry and hate filled as the woman in that broadcast after all they have experienced and continue to experience. I wouldn't blame them for having those feelings.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Racist, tinfoil hat nonsense should not be challenged? Is this to be applied to other crap - homophobia, sexism, transphobia?
A community making clear that it thinks some behaviours are unacceptable is a good thing, and something that has been present on U75 for some time (challenge to London Calling's comments for instance). It's about letting posters and lurkers know what is acceptable and what is not.
I doubt that Jazzz's shite had much direct purchase either, but allowing this stuff to be posted/said/talked without being challenged creates a culture where this crap spreads. Not challenging anti-semitic shite is precisely why there is the presence of anti-semitism has entered into the left. For example, one poster who once claimed on the boards that they could not be sure of the anti-semitic nature of the the Protocols, also argued for 'the left' to engage with conspiracy theorists. And the refusal to challenge anti-semitism allows Isreal to exploit claims of anti-semitism for its own ends.
There needs to be a very strong challenge to stuff that is genuinely anti-semitic, and that Boris continues to post this crap after people have pointed out that it is dodgy shows there is a serious issue here.
Last edited:
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Not sure how serious a suggestion this is but just no, we can't just let things like either of these slide. I'm guilty of not challenging stuff on here as much as I think I should because I'm just not very good at it and don't have the time and energy most of the time. But we cannot say we cannot call out racism if we see it.
And I Don't know where the idea that the issue people have with this thread is the debate is too robust or whatever. I've never got that impression at all.
If anything it is the opposite, too much shit had been let go or even defended when challenged.
I agree with all that.
I agree with all that. I just can't even tell what the posts in question are about. I can't tell how ironic they are or how serious they are. I've gently challenged Boris already and I think people should do that, but he doesn't strike me as someone with a made up mind and a determined agenda like eg Jazzz.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
A poundshop jazzz imitator
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Eight former Indian Naval officers who had been sentenced to death have had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. There's no official reason given for their crime, but the rumours are that they were spying for Israel.
I would imagine that the Israeli kid might be interested in being able to track the location of the chaps at the top of Hamas.
Qatar commutes India ex-navy officers' death penalty
Qatar commutes 8 former Indian Navy men’s death sentence: What has happened, why it matters for India
On October 26, the former Navy men were given the death sentence in Qatar. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar then met their family members. What has happened since then, and why is it significant?
www.google.com
Last edited:
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
Yeah this, seems like a super low blow. Also for people involved with this thread that are having a tough time emotionally, mentally etc, obviously what is happening in the world can be really triggering.
PTK
Paul Kegan
Radio 4 World At One, discussing the Russian missile attacks on Ukraine today: where is the “Russian Mark Regev” putting the Russian point of view? Why it is stated as unchallenged fact that the Russian Federation attacks civilian targets, when this would never be stated of the State of Israel?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Just finished reading this.
The Balfour Declaration
On November 2, 1917, the British government, represented by Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour, declared that they were in favor of 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' This short note would be one of the most controversial documents of its time. A hundred...
Its mercifully short at just over 200 pages but packs a lot of detail in.
For the beginning of the context of this conflict Id say its invaluable.
Its putting the context of the Balfour declaration / Mandate in the larger history of Inter Imperial rivalry/ demise of the Ottoman Empire and development of capitalism/ modernisation of economy.
Regan puts forward that British interest in Palestine was driven by needs of Empire. Suez canal was crucial to Empire as link to India and trade route. Also oil was becoming more important ( naval ships converted to oil from coal) and Palestine had access to sea.
Imperialism had changed from occupying land to have influence over it. Zionist settlers would provide an outpost of Europeans sympathetic to Empires needs.
THe Ottoman Empire had started some modernisation. Land ownership had been changed. However there were existing elites of notables whose position was not questioned until collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
The fall of Ottoman Empire led those elites to believe they would post WW1 get self determination. This didn't happen. Worse the Mandates agreed between French And British arbitrarily carved up the middle east.
Palestine had been envisaged as part of Greater Syria - Palestine/ Lebanon/ Syria. This didn't happen. Reading the appalling way it was carved up and self determination squashed cant help but think some of the issues in Middle East today can be traced back to the bungling way French and British Imperialism behaved.
Knowledge of the Balfour Declaration was known to Arabs early on. Even before Mandate was finally agreed they were sending delegations to Europe to oppose the wording of the Mandate- which favoured Zionism. Brits seemed to think Arabs didn't follow political developments like this.
So Palestine found itself part of Empire. Development came but was skewed in favour of Zionists. Palestinian elites floundered. Finding themselves unable to work with British. Normally in British Empire local elites would be coopted. Local capitalism as well. Instead they found themselves second to Zionists.
Occasional trouble led to numerous reports. Which were ignored by British Cabinets. As per usual with British Empire the reports would say correctly that Palestinian grievances were valid but nothing was done to rectify them. For example small farmers who were broke would end up unemployed in towns as the growing Zionist business sector would not employ non Jews.
A (small) Palestinian working class was developing as well as middle class. Newspapers were developing.
The old notables of the Ottoman period were not getting anywhere. A more radical opposition grew with the new social layers joining. Leading to the Arab Revolt. An armed uprising. Based around local committees. A form of organising seen in recent Intifada. Some of those involved were Pan Arabists from other parts of Middle East. As they saw Palestine as part of larger area.
And this revolt was aimed at the British not the Zionists.
Religion does not feature that much in this. Not that this was completely secular society. He goes into the growing political presence of Palestinian woman during Mandate. The main issues were land / self determination / development of economy/ immigration of Jews. Land being a major issue. The poverty of peasantry and loss of land was ongoing grievance. Which the British did not address.
He's arguing in his book that under the Mandate Palestine went through dramatic changes in a short period of time. Social/ Economic and political.
The other major change was growth in Zionist /Jewish business. Inward investment brought in through Zionism. On Zionist side the skills and knowledge from European migrants brought development. But Palestinians were excluded from it.
There is one point in book where a Palestinian delegation meet Churchill to voice concerns about Mandate and Balfour declaration. He told them not to concern themselves as the British would be their for years. Self government would not be in place in his lifetime. This was typical attitude of the the time. Britains civilizing mission in later Empire always was that at some point when ready people would have self government. But it always was years ahead.
Two add to this:
In the book he points out that from mid 1920s countries like USA clamped down on Jewish migrants. Up to then European Jews choose USA above Palestine for example. The increasing anti semitism with rise of Fascism led to more pressure to leave Europe at time when other countries were becoming less welcoming. ( The same applied post WW2 though not mentioned in this book)
This led to more Jews trying to get to Palestine. Whether ardent Zionists or not.
Secondly there are a few references in book to a non Zionist left in Mandate Palestine. Jewish migrants were instrumental in setting up Palestine Communist Party. Which was aligned with USSR. Tried to recruit Arab members. One of few organisations that attempted to stradle the growing Arab / Jewish divide.
Not much detail on them. They were anti Zionist and anti imperialist. So contended with opposition from Zionist and British authorities.
They were however marginal as most important Labour organisations were Zionist organisations like the Zionist trade union the Histadrut.
Which may imo partly be due to Histadrut being all encompassing union. Helping migrants into work etc. PCP could not compete with this
Though it seems at Mandate time there was some mixing of non Zionist Jewish left and more Zionist.
The small but increasing Palestinian working class in towns ended up setting up it's own organisation due to Histadrut refusing to accept Arabs. And effectively being barred from working in most Jewish owned business.
Last edited:
Similar threads
