Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Or majority Christian IMO. I do think one of the key reasons Palestinians have been (mis)treated as they have for so long is that they're Muslim, and Islam in general is the Great Satan of the western-liberal (christian or secular) hegemony.
How then would you explain the millions of people killed in Vietnam and Korea by US imperialism? Or the attrocties committed against people in :Latin American countries with US support?
 
from my perspective Id add that its the inevitable result of deliberate squashing of all 'socialist' alternatives by the west for decades... political islam and western capitalist imperialism are ying and yang, utterly tied together.


I do agree with you but fundamentalist religious beliefs are a driving ideological factor. If Palestinians were Jewish it wouldnt be an issue right? If Israeli's were pastafarians it would also change the dynamic
If the Irish were British the Black and Tans would not have been sent there, and there would have been no Bloody Sunday. If the Palestinians were Jewish, they would not be Palestinians.
 
How then would you explain the millions of people killed in Vietnam and Korea by US imperialism? Or the attrocties committed against people in :Latin American countries with US support?
Indeed. Also, I'm not sure how long Islam has been the Great Satan really. That's a relatively recent phenomenon, no? For example, Churchill was anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim when it came to his dealings with India.
 
Desperately rifling through the policies of apartheid South Africa, they discovered Bantustans.

Well yes.

Even though early Zionism sought an ethnically pure state with no Arabs as the ideal the actual practise since 67 it could be argued is that Palestine is now controlled totally by Israel. The Occupied Territories have been under Israeli state control for so long it could be argued that its one state. But with the Palestinians living in equivalent of bantustans. This carving up of West Bank by settlement building is example. Jewish settlers on West Bank have right to vote. Even though this is technically not Israel. But Palestinians living next to settlements do not and do not have the freedom of movement of illegal settlers.

However, as is seen in Gaza, for some Zionists this is unlike South Africa of Apartheid years in sense its seen as a provisional solution. Not a permanent one. Ideally all Palestinians would just give in and go is preferred option.

And it looks like in Gaza that making Gaza unliveable is meant to make them leave.
 
Nada Abu Tarbush's best point imo is that Jews can be Palestinians, too. in that vision, the descriptor 'Palestinian' is not exclusive, it is inclusive. It includes everyone who considers the historic Palestine to be their home. We don't have to accept the terms as laid out by those who seek dominion of one group over another.
 
not really, no. have you heard of the crusades?
The point I was responding to talked of 'the western-liberal (christian or secular) hegemony', so we're talking recent decades.

I would argue that the 'Great Satan' of the Western-Liberal bloc during the Cold War was communism. The US backed Islamists if they were anti-communist, eg the Mujahideen.

I don't exactly know when the western-liberal (christian or secular) hegemony is taken to have started, but in terms of the focus being on the Islamic world as the locus of the main ideological enemy, I would say that only really dates back to the 1990s.
 
The point I was responding to talked of 'the western-liberal (christian or secular) hegemony', so we're talking recent decades.

I would argue that the 'Great Satan' of the Western-Liberal bloc during the Cold War was communism. The US backed Islamists if they were anti-communist, eg the Mujahideen.

I don't exactly know when the western-liberal (christian or secular) hegemony is taken to have started, but in terms of the focus being on the Islamic world as the locus of the main ideological enemy, I would say that only really dates back to the 1990s.
yeh we're talking recent decades but you're assuming rather a lot here. as we all recall, i expect, islamists haven't forgotten the crusades, with descriptions of the british and americans as crusaders for their interventions in the middle east in recent years. fascists haven't forgotten the crusades. for instance i am sure you've seen the edl imagery which harks back to then - and of course jim dowson's knights templar international. there are many centuries of history of christians painting islam as the great satan, from at least the composition of the song of roland on. it's not like the islamic world being the locus of the main ideological enemy is of recent creation. for sure, muslims have been useful tools with which to beat eg the soviet union during their afghanistan war, or to further british imperial policies in india. but there's a great genealogy of antipathy to islam on which contemporary efforts to paint islam as the great satan draw.
 
I've been avoiding the BBC over Gaza. Sadly it's made World Service virtually unlistenable. Today was no exception. They started a piece on the conflict by talking about the clash of religions, so I had to turn it over. This isn't a conflict about religion. It is a conflict about land. There are those on both sides who would like to make out that it is about religion, and Netanyahu's promotion of Hamas fits that narrative. They are to be opposed.

Some Israelis must feel this is about religion too.



If you dont have instagram..
Here are relevant screenshots.
20240102_134134.jpgScreenshot_20240102_133929_Instagram.jpg
 
This is incidental IMO, actual 'collateral damage'. If the people were broadly Christian and it was all churches in Gaza, we would not be seeing this. The whole history of it would be totally different. The USA would for example not stand for it, and things would follow from there. It's arguable that the Balfour declaration wouldn't even have been made in the first place if Palestine had been a Christian place, it wouldn't have been 'a land without people', etc.


(Sorry ska invita I see what you're talking about - and if Jewish extremists go on attacking Christians and churches I expect to hear it reported very differently in our western media from if it were Muslims and mosques. We might even start to hear disapproving noises from the USA)
they have targetted Christians also. Have done so for quite some time even prior to October 7th.

Since Oct 7th Israel bombed the Church of Saint Porphyrius, the Gaza Strip’s oldest, killing at least 18 people. Also a number were shot by Israeli snipers.


Here's an article that shows that Christians have also been mistreated and abused by IDF.

 
they have targetted Christians also. Have done so for quite some time even prior to October 7th.

Since Oct 7th Israel bombed the Church of Saint Porphyrius, the Gaza Strip’s oldest, killing at least 18 people. Also a number were shot by Israeli snipers.


Here's an article that shows that Christians have also been mistreated and abused by IDF.

US imperialism supported the annexation of predominantly Christian East Timor by the predominantly Muslim Republic of Indonesia in 1975.

US imperialism was quite content with the assassination of Archbishop Romero of San Salvador in his own cathedral in 1980 by a “death squad”.
 
US imperialism supported the annexation of predominantly Christian East Timor by the predominantly Muslim Republic of Indonesia in 1975.

US imperialism was quite content with the assassination of Archbishop Romero of San Salvador in his own cathedral in 1980 by a “death squad”.
yes, religion is used when it is convenient to use it, not when it's not.

So Hamas's Islamism is being used by Israel, the US and others to link them to other Islamist groups like Al Qaida and even ISIS. That such links don't make a whole lot of sense is beside the point. They're creating an enemy, and they'll use whatever tools are to hand to do so.
 
How then would you explain the millions of people killed in Vietnam and Korea by US imperialism? Or the attrocties committed against people in :Latin American countries with US support?

I don't really do whataboutery. We're discussing israel / palestine, in which the Palestinian people being mostly Muslim is IMO an important aspect of how it's playing out and how 'the west' responds to that.
 
Since Oct 7th Israel bombed the Church of Saint Porphyrius, the Gaza Strip’s oldest, killing at least 18 people. Also a number were shot by Israeli snipers.


Here's an article that shows that Christians have also been mistreated and abused by IDF.


Again, I think this would come under 'collateral damage'. Which is a hateful expression but it's what we have.
 
If the Irish were British the Black and Tans would not have been sent there, and there would have been no Bloody Sunday. If the Palestinians were Jewish, they would not be Palestinians.
Did you know that the Black and Tans were also sent to Palestine?

Oh and technically in 1920 when the Black & Tans arrived in Ireland the country was still british with a small b. As the agreement creating the Dominion called the Irish Free State wasnt signed off until 1922,
 
I don't really do whataboutery. We're discussing israel / palestine, in which the Palestinian people being mostly Muslim is IMO an important aspect of how it's playing out and how 'the west' responds to that.
It's a question of cause and effect, though. Are Palestinians being demonised because they're Muslim, or is Islam being used against them in order to demonise them? While these things are rarely clear-cut and binary, I would argue that it is largely the latter. The desire to demonise comes first, that they are largely Muslim is the tool used to achieve that aim.
 
Definitely

Maybe, though I'm not sure I've seen that (assuming I understand what you mean, which I may not)
My point is that if they weren't majority Muslim, some other stick would be found to beat them with. But as it happens, this is the stick being used. And, as we know, their Muslimness has been cultivated by the likes of Netanyahu. He wants them to be defined that way.

The reason I reposted the speech by Nada Abu Tarbush was to illustrate that there are other ways of defining Palestinians, ways that are used by Palestinians like Tarbush, ways that could include, for example, Jewish Palestinians. These secular ideas are worth supporting, imo. And it's important not to fall into the trap of following the terms of engagement set out by people like Netanyahu, which was my original point about the BBC's coverage.
 
My point is that if they weren't majority Muslim, some other stick would be found to beat them with. But as it happens, this is the stick being used. And, as we know, their Muslimness has been cultivated by the likes of Netanyahu. He wants them to be defined that way.

Maybe, though I strongly suspect if Palestinians were mainly Jewish or Christian (or atheistic) that some accommodation with them would have been sought and found by now.
 
Last edited:
yeh we're talking recent decades but you're assuming rather a lot here. as we all recall, i expect, islamists haven't forgotten the crusades, with descriptions of the british and americans as crusaders for their interventions in the middle east in recent years. fascists haven't forgotten the crusades. for instance i am sure you've seen the edl imagery which harks back to then - and of course jim dowson's knights templar international. there are many centuries of history of christians painting islam as the great satan, from at least the composition of the song of roland on. it's not like the islamic world being the locus of the main ideological enemy is of recent creation. for sure, muslims have been useful tools with which to beat eg the soviet union during their afghanistan war, or to further british imperial policies in india. but there's a great genealogy of antipathy to islam on which contemporary efforts to paint islam as the great satan draw.

Absolutely. State-enforced collectivism (whether we call that Communism or something else) is certainly an enemy of capitalism and has been for a while. Maybe it still is in some circles, but actually in those circles it's mainly considered to have failed by c.1990 so it's not really anybody's great enemy any more. Communism had its century as A Great Satan - Islam on the other hand has been The Great Satan for centuries, since long before Communism came along. Palestinians being mainly Muslim is IMO absolutely key to everything that's happened there since 1917 and even before. They simply don't count / need to fuck off / descendants of the infidels who stole the Holy Land so they are.

In any case this is a pretty standard far-right view as I'm sure you recognise ... the Jews can fuck off to Israel and they can give the Muslims a spanking, win/win.
 
Snipers shooting people in a church? Intentional rather than collateral. And can deaths as part of a genocidal onslaught be labelled collateral? I think not.

I think you can call intentional damage and murder 'collateral'. It doesn't have to actually be accidental. The point is, it's not the few hundred Christian Palestinians that Israel wants rid of, it's the millions of Muslim ones. The Christian ones are just on the wrong side, by choosing to live among wronguns. And naturally any harm that comes to them is on (islamic organization) Hamas etc
 
Back
Top Bottom