Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

tim said:
Popping over the Lebanese border to attack those they don't like or more commonly getting their proxies in the country to do their dirty work is something that both the Israel and Syria have been doing for decades.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see your point. Seems like they’re near the end of their leash with more than a few allies right now, though, and who are they going to run to when the fire gets too big for them?
 
Gramsci said:
I think its important to look at Israel / Zionist history.

West Bank today is not under Hamas control. The ( bits) of it that are under Palestinian control are run by secular Fatah. This has not stopped settler attacks on farmers. Or IDF rounding up people for detention.

Recently a settler tried to argue that the farmer his group of settler killed was Hamas. This was laughable. Even Israeli press didnt take that up. He was unarmed farmer tending his olive trees.

Trying to shoe horn everything into the clash of religions is missing the point of Zionism.

Zionism is about creating an ethno nationalist state. In this case for Jews. Its now also about defending that ethno nationalist state against those expelled who want their land back. Its a colonising political project that comes from an European tradition of going to non European parts of world and taking them over.

Id say in order of reasons religion comes second. Land comes first. Ethnic cleansing comes first. Back in early days religion was not trotted out as an excuse. These Arabs being non Europeans was enough justification. The casual racism of Zionists was not peculiar to them at that time.

Id say Likud roots are in Revisionist Zionism which was upfront about getting Arab population out. ( and was like Labour Zionism secular)What is happening in Gaza is not primarily about religion. Its about for once and for all dealing with the Palestinian problem.

And Palestinians have always being regarded as a problem. It turned out this was not an empty land for a people without a land. Nor was possible to get a "transfer" of Arab population. Only way to do it was by force.

In that sense their is a continuity in Zionist thinking. Even if the different wings do not always agree. The general trajectory has been the same.

Back in early days David Ben Gurion agreed that certain very religious Jews should be allowed not to serve in IDF. At that time they were small minority. I think it could be argued that Israeli society has changed over the decades and the more religious element have increased.
Click to expand...

TBF this is one point, which has been made a lot, that I do not really agree with.

The colonial projects of some European states did absolutely go elsewhere in order to take places over, but it was very rare that they'd go there in order to expel the original occupants. To exploit them absolutely, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where there was an ideology to go there and dispossess them from the beginning.
 
agricola said:
TBF this is one point, which has been made a lot, that I do not really agree with.

The colonial projects of some European states did absolutely go elsewhere in order to take places over, but it was very rare that they'd go there in order to expel the original occupants. To exploit them absolutely, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where there was an ideology to go there and dispossess them from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Australia?
 
agricola said:
TBF this is one point, which has been made a lot, that I do not really agree with.

The colonial projects of some European states did absolutely go elsewhere in order to take places over, but it was very rare that they'd go there in order to expel the original occupants. To exploit them absolutely, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where there was an ideology to go there and dispossess them from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Expansion west across North America? That was a case of taking land and expelling the original occupants. Also the British in central Africa. A small number of white farmers didn't end up owning half of Rhodesia by accident. And the British/Afrikaners in South Africa fighting the Xhosa. There rarely is a genuine terra nullius.
 
Gramsci said:
Trying to shoe horn everything into the clash of religions is missing the point of Zionism.

Zionism is about creating an ethno nationalist state. In this case for Jews. Its now also about defending that ethno nationalist state against those expelled who want their land back. Its a colonising political project that comes from an European tradition of going to non European parts of world and taking them over.
Click to expand...
It's also - from a christian perspective, which means the USA for one - about denying control of the Holy Land to Islam. Zionism may be a primarily Jewish project but it has a lot of Christian supporters, for that basic reason. What Israel is doing right now is definitely, as you say and as nobody disagrees with, is a smash'n'grab for the river to the sea.

But that's all happening in a broader context too, and I know I keep harping on it but that context is The Holy Land. That's why all manner of fash and Christian fundamentalists stand with Israel. Colonialist attitudes, may be relevant - but fear and hate of Islam, that's a really old story.
Gramsci said:
Id say in order of reasons religion comes second. Land comes first. Ethnic cleansing comes first. Back in early days religion was not trotted out as an excuse.
Click to expand...
Back in those days people generally had more (public) respect for any religion than we might expect now, but anti-islamic sentiment wasn't necessary anyway. As you suggest, basic racism was all the rage back then too.
Gramsci said:
These Arabs being non Europeans was enough justification. The casual racism of Zionists was not peculiar to them at that time.

Id say Likud roots are in Revisionist Zionism which was upfront about getting Arab population out. ( and was like Labour Zionism secular)What is happening in Gaza is not primarily about religion. Its about for once and for all dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, however (I believe) there wouldn't be such a 'palestinian problem' if Palestinians weren't Muslim. And particularly not if they were Jewish. Pretending religion is playing only a minor role here is obtuse - especially when looked at from a global perspective, after all the land itself is tiny, way out of proportion IMO to how many people care and how much they care, about Israel and Palestine and this situation.

Gramsci said:
Back in early days David Ben Gurion agreed that certain very religious Jews should be allowed not to serve in IDF. At that time they were small minority. I think it could be argued that Israeli society has changed over the decades and the more religious element have increased.
Click to expand...
The rise of the hard-line religious right over the last 20 or-so years in Israel has been terrifying to watch, we're now seeing the fruits of that growth. Religion is absolutely at the heart of this - and outside of Israel/Palestine among mainstream Muslims and Christians, the main framing of the whole history is broadly religious. Jerusalem. Bethlehem. River Jordan - all highly contested places long before 1948.

Yes, you're right - it is about land. But it's about much more than that - especially outside Israel's borders.
 
Last edited:
agricola said:
TBF this is one point, which has been made a lot, that I do not really agree with.

The colonial projects of some European states did absolutely go elsewhere in order to take places over, but it was very rare that they'd go there in order to expel the original occupants. To exploit them absolutely, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where there was an ideology to go there and dispossess them from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

In general Ive tried on this thread to situate Zionism and it's history in broader context of Europe.

Partly as I don't want to go down route of Zionism being somehow unique political project of Jews. And all that entails.

But yes remember even Ilan Pappe saying once that Zionism is quite different. That whilst rest of world was moving towards decolonising post war Zionism was building a settler colonial state.

There are many types of colonialism. I was listening to American from BLM talk today and he was asked why BLM supported Palestinians. He said both share a history of oppression then and now. I think situating Zionism in a context of imperialism/ colonialism can also help build solidarity between different people..

Also the Nakba has it happened was not a foregone conclusion. Various ideas were put forward. Including getting British to help and fund relocation of Arabs to Jordan. Which British refused. Things built up to the violent expulsion over period of time.

The other aspect of Zionism the historian Tony Judt said, when he broke with Zionism and advocated a one state solution was that Zionism came out of an idea of nationalism that gained ground in second half of 19c in Europe .Rather than saying it was colonial.. He got a lot of stick for that a one state for Palestinians and Jews was the answer. Not an out of date form of 19c nationalism.

Many forms of colonialism/ settlers ended up transferring indigenous populations and/ or killing large numbers. Later period of USA when moving westwards.

Also happened in some areas of south America in 19c as Europeans moved inland. Argentina - have friend there part indigenous who said terrible things were done in 19c

But yes this wasn't necessarily planned ahead. Herzl was indicating population transfer was necessary from right of start of Zionism.

Tasmania there was war to expell indigenous people. Competition over land became an issue.

Some of these were not pre planned but built up gradually. Particularly if indigenous people fought back.
 
Last edited:
mojo pixy said:
It's also - from a christian perspective, which means the USA for one - about denying control of the Holy Land to Islam. Zionism may be a primarily Jewish project but it has a lot of Christian supporters, for that basic reason. What Israel is doing right now is definitely, as you say and as nobody disagrees with, is a smash'n'grab for the river to the sea.
Click to expand...
Up to now I notice that most people I conversate (around ohio usa) with have no desire to be affected by the trouble of it all, saying such things as "that's their problem not ours", that there isn't anything we can do about it, and have not been inclined to change their plans to enjoy themselves.

I'd say shameful fear plays biggest part, same kind that started all the arms racing and warfare spawning its own offspring. Western media has been unwatchable for the most part, thank god for english speaking foreign news outlets.
 
agricola said:
TBF this is one point, which has been made a lot, that I do not really agree with.

The colonial projects of some European states did absolutely go elsewhere in order to take places over, but it was very rare that they'd go there in order to expel the original occupants. To exploit them absolutely, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where there was an ideology to go there and dispossess them from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Umm.. are you for real? The British Empire was a master class on crushing people and either making life so miserable that many indigenous people left or starving them to death.
Take Ireland..The ordinary people were pushed out to the west where the land was so bad they didnt thrive...
Then when the Starvations (so called famines...there were numbers of these) the British government did next to nothing to help the dying poor Irish population and it is recorded in the Parliamentary documents that it was said that the Irish should be left to die..there were too many of them anyway...and it would free up the land when they died. The British government was also pretty happy about the numbers leaving the country to escape the "starvation". Remember this..Ireland was a country full of food....but it was only going one way....on a boat to Britain.

This is how colonialism is... Divide. Conquer. Starve. Or kill in another way. Force the "indigenous" people to leave.

I'm surprised that you dont know this?
 
Gramsci said:
Fair point.

In general Ive tried on this thread to situate Zionism and it's history in broader context of Europe.

Partly as I don't want to go down route of Zionism being somehow unique political project of Jews. And all that entails.

But yes remember even Ilan Pappe saying once that Zionism is quite different. That whilst rest of world was moving towards decolonising post war Zionism was building a settler colonial state.

There are many types of colonialism. I was listening to American from BLM talk today and he was asked why BLM supported Palestinians. He said both share a history of oppression then and now. I think situating Zionism in a context of imperialism/ colonialism can also help build solidarity between different people..

Also the Nakba has it happened was not a foregone conclusion. Various ideas were put forward. Including getting British to help and fund relocation of Arabs to Jordan. Which British refused. Things built up to the violent expulsion over period of time.

The other aspect of Zionism the historian Tony Judt said, when he broke with Zionism and advocated a one state solution was that Zionism came out of an idea of nationalism that gained ground in second half of 19c in Europe .Rather than saying it was colonial.. He got a lot of stick for that a one state for Palestinians and Jews was the answer. Not an out of date form of 19c nationalism.

Many forms of colonialism/ settlers ended up transferring indigenous populations and/ or killing large numbers. Later period of USA when moving westwards.

Also happened in some areas of south America in 19c as Europeans moved inland. Argentina - have friend there part indigenous who said terrible things were done in 19c

But yes this wasn't necessarily planned ahead. Herzl was indicating population transfer was necessary from right of start of Zionism.

Tasmania there was war to expell indigenous people. Competition over land became an issue.

Some of these were not pre planned but built up gradually. Particularly if indigenous people fought back.
Click to expand...

This does remind me of an interesting piece from 2006 by James Horrox (author of A Living Revolution: Anarchism and The Kibbutz Movement) in Freedom, which noted the complexity of what "Zionism" actually meant to Jews in the early years of the 20th century. While it's probably fair to say the hegemonic form of Zionism today is that of a violent colonial project embracing a form of ethnic cleansing, that's an evolved position, rather than a set one from the start, and there were "Zionists" in the radical kibbutz movement particularly who had strong critiques of the nationalist wing which fuelled it. Horrox notes:

The ideological program drawn up at the 1927 meeting of the Hashomer Hatzair council contends that “it is directly incumbent upon the General Federation of Jewish Workers to proceed by degrees, towards creating an international organisation of Jewish and Arab workers, based upon mutual understanding for the special national needs of each national entity. Only an international workers’ organisation will realise the social revolution in the country.” In the eyes of Hashomer Hatzair, peaceful and egalitarian coexistence would be facilitated by ensuring that the Left “encourage the joint organisation of Jewish and Arab workers”, and accordingly Arabs were incorporated into the country’s Trade Union movement, the Histadrut.

The organisation has long maintained this integrationist viewpoint, putting forward a policy based on “the common interests of Jewish and Arab workers in the class struggle”, illustrative of thefact that the kibbutzim viewed the Arabs as their natural political allies in the class war and opposition to British imperialism. The enemies of the Arabs, thought the kibbutzniks, were the Arab effendi (landowners), not their Jewish fellow-workers.


The 1927 programme not only constitutes the first codified indication of an idea which would become a defining feature of Hashomer Hatzair thought, and subsequently that of Kibbutz Artzi (the ‘Ideological backbone’ of the movement, into which Hashomer Hatzair would evolve), but according to the kibbutz historian Henry Near, “at this stage ... it expressed an aspiration common to many on the left of the Labour Zionist movement.”

Zionism in' its statist form was never popular among the kibbutzniks, the vast majority of whom were openly hostile to the idea of a Jewish State.
Click to expand...
I think there's a self-serving tendency within the actions of the Israeli State and its allies particularly to try and erase the history of such dissenting opinions, because it's extremely inconvenient for their wider pitch.
 
Aladdin said:
They sound very confident that they will be vindicated.
I wonder if Netanyahu will go? He probably will... offer himself up for judgement.
Click to expand...
I don't think they have any choice but to take that line. At no point have they admitted to doing anything wrong. At no point have they admitted to lying. They have no intention to stop.
 
Aladdin said:
Umm.. are you for real? The British Empire was a master class on crushing people and either making life so miserable that many indigenous people left or starving them to death.
Take Ireland..The ordinary people were pushed out to the west where the land was so bad they didnt thrive...
Then when the Starvations (so called famines...there were numbers of these) the British government did next to nothing to help the dying poor Irish population and it is recorded in the Parliamentary documents that it was said that the Irish should be left to die..there were too many of them anyway...and it would free up the land when they died. The British government was also pretty happy about the numbers leaving the country to escape the "starvation". Remember this..Ireland was a country full of food....but it was only going one way....on a boat to Britain.

This is how colonialism is... Divide. Conquer. Starve. Or kill in another way. Force the "indigenous" people to leave.

I'm surprised that you dont know this?
Click to expand...

That was not my point. Of course the British Empire was exploitative on a massive scale, but nearly all the colonies were set up to exploit wealth and not with the express aim of removing the inhabitants - the people were dispossessed and reduced to a servile state in order to help in their own exploitation. Ireland is a particularly good example of this, as the British presence in Ireland was hundreds of years old and had well established feudal developing into landlord systems by the time of the first major famine, never mind the Great Famine. Exploitative colonies generally need at least a significant chunk of the local population to stay to do the work, and if that isn't possible (because they've been killed off) then a new servile class has to be imported. When people leave it is to seek a better life away from that system of exploitation, not because the rulers have thrown them out of the country entirely.

If Israel was set up in the same way as a typical European colony, I think it would be a radically different state than the one it is.
 
agricola said:
That was not my point. Of course the British Empire was exploitative on a massive scale, but nearly all the colonies were set up to exploit wealth and not with the express aim of removing the inhabitants - the people were dispossessed and reduced to a servile state in order to help in their own exploitation. Ireland is a particularly good example of this, as the British presence in Ireland was hundreds of years old and had well established feudal developing into landlord systems by the time of the first major famine, never mind the Great Famine. Exploitative colonies generally need at least a significant chunk of the local population to stay to do the work, and if that isn't possible (because they've been killed off) then a new servile class has to be imported. When people leave it is to seek a better life away from that system of exploitation, not because the rulers have thrown them out of the country entirely.

If Israel was set up in the same way as a typical European colony, I think it would be a radically different state than the one it is.
Click to expand...
The German colonies in eg Poland by contrast
 
agricola said:
That was not my point. Of course the British Empire was exploitative on a massive scale, but nearly all the colonies were set up to exploit wealth and not with the express aim of removing the inhabitants - the people were dispossessed and reduced to a servile state in order to help in their own exploitation. Ireland is a particularly good example of this, as the British presence in Ireland was hundreds of years old and had well established feudal developing into landlord systems by the time of the first major famine, never mind the Great Famine. Exploitative colonies generally need at least a significant chunk of the local population to stay to do the work, and if that isn't possible (because they've been killed off) then a new servile class has to be imported. When people leave it is to seek a better life away from that system of exploitation, not because the rulers have thrown them out of the country entirely.

If Israel was set up in the same way as a typical European colony, I think it would be a radically different state than the one it is.
Click to expand...
Look at early modern colonialism in Ireland where they coined 'Hell or Connacht". It's been there a long time.
 
agricola said:
The planned ones after WW2? That would be more like it, but even they were going to have a class of uneducated non-Aryans to work the land (with everyone else being killed off by one means or another).
Click to expand...
The planned one during ww2, where much of pre-war Poland was to have its Polish population extirpated and did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
279
Views
15K
teqniq
teqniq
Pickman's model
Israel and hezbollah after the exploding pagers
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
467
Views
20K
yield
Y
WhyLikeThis
Mpox - news and discussion
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
387
Views
22K
Cerv
C
teqniq
Worldwide protest/actions concerning events in Gaza/Palestine/Israel
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
11K
zahir
Z
littlebabyjesus
Israel's shoddy Gaza propaganda
2 3 4
Replies
116
Views
8K
frogwoman
frogwoman
Back
Top Bottom