Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

The book I was referring to in my post 9899 is this


Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948

By Nur Masalha whose written a lot and This is first one I have looked at. Read about a quarter of it. He's gone through as much as he can of material relating to meetings and discussions that went on at the time. Zionists were heavily lobbying British politicians and officials during Mandate period.

Its not just about the thought it covers the ongoing discussions going on within Zionism/ talks with British authorities during Mandate.

My reading so far points to this not being an anti colonial struggle. But one where mainstream Zionism was trying to get British onside for in their words used at time a colonising political movement that required the indigenous Arab population to move out of the area.
 
From what I have read the South Africans are first asking for a direction from the court to tell Israeli government/ IDF to desist from the bombing.

This does not mean the court is passing a definitive judgement. That will take months Which South Africa also want to pursue.

An interim order that there is enough evidence to direct Israeli state to stop certain actions could be done quickly.

This could be highly embarrassing for Israeli government. They could ignore the court
 
It was not a war of national liberation, because they were not a nation.
Why wasn't Israel a nation in 1948? Do you consider it to be a nation now? Was Pakistan a nation when it also became independent in 1948? If so, what made it different from Israel?
 
Anyone have a thought on this?
"Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has outlined proposals for the future governance of Gaza once the war between Israel and Hamas is over.
There would, he said, be limited Palestinian rule in the territory.
Hamas would no longer control Gaza and Israel would retain overall security control, he added.

Under Mr Gallant's now "four corner" plan, Israel would retain overall security control of Gaza.
A multi-national force would take charge of rebuilding the territory after the widespread destruction caused by Israeli bombing.
Neighbouring Egypt would also have an unspecified role to play under the plan.

---------

my thoughts are that its a semi-polite time-waste, floats the idea of rebuilding Gaza for Gazans, just about providing a figleaf, ahead of coming site visits from the US and that awkward genocide case at the ICJ etc, for the real plan expressed highest up by Netanyahu to "thin out" Gaza's population and force a mass escape [of Palestinians] to European and African countries" by opening sea routes out of the strip." : .

Question is, is there a meaningful split in desired outcome at the top of the Israeli political class? I dont believe there is, but we'll see soon enough I guess. Even the figleaf has Israeli occupation and "unspecified" role for Egypt in it.
 
The complication being that they trounced the British in a war of national liberation in the late 40's
I think that was a stupid comment. Here is Wikipedia's interpretation:

Mandatory Palestine​

Main article: End of the British Mandate for Palestine
The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts by the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities.[237] The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship.[238] Two weeks later, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would terminate on 15 May 1948.[239][v] On the last day of the mandate, the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War began.[239]

BTW the UK at this time was an exhausted ex-superpower. India was made independent on 15th August 1947 - and immediately partitioned with the loss of 2.5 million lives and the creation of millions more refugees.

No doubt the British government and public (many of who recently returned home from World War II) were not minded to or capable of keeping a lid on an exploding mandate in the face of Zionist terrorism, led by the likes of Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin.

Your comment suggests the Zionists kicked out the British - whereas in reality they kicked out the Palestinians - and continue to do so.
 
Why wasn't Israel a nation in 1948? Do you consider it to be a nation now? Was Pakistan a nation when it also became independent in 1948? If so, what made it different from Israel?
The right of nations to self-determination of nations is a principle that is generally accepted. By “self-determination” is meant an independent state, but what is a nation?

How do you define a nation?
 
The right of nations to self-determination of nations is a principle that is generally accepted. By “self-determination” is meant an independent state, but what is a nation?

How do you define a nation?
This is always going to be disputed because the definition is largely circular. A nation is a group that enjoys self-determination. A nation-state is a demarcated area of land within which self-determination takes place.

And in reality, although the word nation may not always be used, we can belong to more than one nation at the same time - nations can be layered.

Which nations should enjoy self-determination and how great that self-determination should be will always be disputed. It isn't fixed - nations can be created and destroyed.
 
This makes for grim reading


I have seen reports about this on Al Jazeera. With people showing marks on wrists and bodies.

Unless everyone is lying these reports are to numerous to see abuses as just done by a few rotten apples.

This is collective punishment of Palestinians. It's also psychologically terrorising a whole population.

None of this appears to have influence on our political leaders.
 
I wonder if the irony is lost on them that their obsession with painting their opponents as Nazis, however ludicrous the claim, bears a striking resemblance to that of Vladimir Putin.

Given the closeness of Netanyahu and much of the Israeli right to Putin and the Russian regime, why do you think they would be bothered by the resemblance?
 
my thoughts are that its a semi-polite time-waste, floats the idea of rebuilding Gaza for Gazans, just about providing a figleaf, ahead of coming site visits from the US and that awkward genocide case at the ICJ etc, for the real plan expressed highest up by Netanyahu to "thin out" Gaza's population and force a mass escape [of Palestinians] to European and African countries" by opening sea routes out of the strip." : .

Question is, is there a meaningful split in desired outcome at the top of the Israeli political class? I dont believe there is, but we'll see soon enough I guess. Even the figleaf has Israeli occupation and "unspecified" role for Egypt in it.
This suggests I was right:
steaming bullshit designed to placate and buy time
 
What is depressing about reading Humza statement is that having that position on a ceasefire and supporting Palestinians does not have to be politically suspect. It can in other situations be a quite normal position to take that does not require other justifications.

Spain is another example like Scotland where this is mainstream position.

Given that its not as bad here as in USA. Where people are being hounded and forced to resign for supporting freedom of speech.

Though its still pretty bad in England.
 
Last edited:
Why wasn't Israel a nation in 1948? Do you consider it to be a nation now? Was Pakistan a nation when it also became independent in 1948? If so, what made it different from Israel?
Do you think the state of Israel should have been set up in that place and at that time?
 
One of the things about the history of Israel is that without outside support it would not have survived in its present form.

UK, France and USA have all given State of Israel an awful lot of support over the years.
 
What is depressing about reading Humza statement is that having that position on a ceasefire and supporting Palestinians does not have to be politically suspect. It can in other situations be a quite normal position to take that does not require other justifications.

Spain is another example like Scotland where this is mainstream position.

Given that its not as bad here as in USA. Where people are being hounded and forced to resign for supporting freedom of speech.

Trust me, there are loads of gammons who will jump on him now - and that's just in Scotland. "Yousless" they will call him. Already had an argument with one of them on Facebook. They are picking up on the Scottish govt supposedly funding a mosque with links to Iran and also giving money to Gaza - though I'm sure the US and UK governments do that (while simultaneously helping the Israelis to bomb the shit out of it). Go figure.
 
.
Do you think the state of Israel should have been set up in that place and at that time?
It happened and that can't be changed. I don't see the creation of an Israeli national identity as being different from the creation of other national identities at the period, which is why I mentioned Pakistan which was also created as an overtly confessional state but there are plenty of other examples in post colonial Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.

I'm not surprised that Jews chose to emigrate to the region in such numbers given that the opportunity to do so became available under the Ottoman and British Empires. The main attraction of emigration was to escape being defamed, persecuted, robbed raped and murdered. The pogroms and the Holocaust are the most egregious examples of that persecution, but there was much else besides; the rise of rabidly antisemitic parties in the nations carved out of the Ottoman and Austrian, German and Ottoman Empires after WW1; Father Couglan preaching hate on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church on the radio stations of the USA; Sir Oswald Mosley marching with his paramilitary squadrons of thugs and physically attacking Jews on the streets of Britain with the support of the Daily Mail and Lord Rotheremere; the persecution of Dreyfus and the subsequent rise of the pseudo-intellectual Jew hating Action Francaise in France.


I'm aware that I'm repeating myself and that I've said things similar to this further up the thread at least once.
 
.

It happened and that can't be changed. I don't see the creation of an Israeli national identity as being different from the creation of other national identities at the period, which is why I mentioned Pakistan which was also created as an overtly confessional state but there are plenty of other examples in post colonial Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.

I'm not surprised that Jews chose to emigrate to the region in such numbers given that the opportunity to do so became available under the Ottoman and British Empires. The main attraction of emigration was to escape being defamed, persecuted, robbed raped and murdered. The pogroms and the Holocaust are the most egregious examples of that persecution, but there was much else besides; the rise of rabidly antisemitic parties in the nations carved out of the Ottoman and Austrian, German and Ottoman Empires after WW1; Father Couglan preaching hate on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church on the radio stations of the USA; Sir Oswald Mosley marching with his paramilitary squadrons of thugs and physically attacking Jews on the streets of Britain with the support of the Daily Mail and Lord Rotheremere; the persecution of Dreyfus and the subsequent rise of the pseudo-intellectual Jew hating Action Francaise in France.


I'm aware that I'm repeating myself and that I've said things similar to this further up the thread at least once.
The partition of India certainly can't be changed either. But was that the right thing to have happened? Jinnah seemed to want something far more secular than what Pakistan has become. India itself is currently lurching towards Hindu nationalism, although of course roughly as many Muslims live in India today as in Pakistan. And Israel lurches ever more towards Jewish nationalism, while Gaza is controlled by Islamic nationalists. Intolerance grows when people decide they can't live with or next to people who they have decided are not like them.

The whole idea that somehow Hindus and Muslims can't live with or next to one another is a rotten one. And so is the idea that Muslims and Jews can't live with or next to one another. And the idea of a state whose identity is overtly a religious one is revolting, whatever that religion might be.

The mass migration of Jews to first Palestine and later Israel can't be changed. But how those Jews see themselves and their place in that region can change. How they view and treat their Muslim neighbours can change. If it doesn't, then they're likely in for another 75 years of perpetual war.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians remain fucked.
 
'Dennis Ross, a former US ambassador, told the BBC, there is a lot of evidence that Iran does not want an escalation or direct conflict with the US. This is partly because it thinks its current policy of attrition and strategic patience is paying off. Tehran senses the US is wanting to leave the region, Iran’s ultimate objective."


Interesting.... Michael Walker was making a point I hadn't heard before that Israel also fears US "pivot to Asia" (three horrific words), worries it will be abandoned, and is happy to stir conflict to keep US engaged. I'm a little dubious about that - the US can "pivot" and still keep Israel as a base, but the views above from Iran and Israel might well add to the dynamics playing out
 
Last edited:
'Dennis Ross, a former US ambassador, told the BBC, there is a lot of evidence that Iran does not want an escalation or direct conflict with the US. This is partly because it thinks its current policy of attrition and strategic patience is paying off. Tehran senses the US is wanting to leave the region, Iran’s ultimate objective."


Interesting.... Michael Walker was making a point I hadn't heard before that Israel also fears US "pivot to Asia" (three horrific words), worries it will be abandoned, and is happy to stir conflict to keep US engaged. I'm a little dubious about that - the US can "pivot" and still keep Israel as a base, but the views above from Iran and Israel might well add to the dynamics playing out
Pivot is only horrifying because of its association with excel
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Sue
Back
Top Bottom