Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[Ĝasper]

Go on then

We'll I think the editor would be the one to do it, no? I am on about the "Ukraine and the Russian invasion" folder, within the "world politics" folder.

 

[Pickman's model]

We'll I think the editor would be the one to do it, no? I am on about the "Ukraine and the Russian invasion" folder, within the "world politics" folder.

I thought you meant starting another thread on that specific topic. Plus this really deserves a forum to explore its numerous topics and another thread as you proposed strengthens the case for that

 

[teqniq]

Fair play:

MK faces impeachment after accusing Israel of genocide

 

[PTK]

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?

I apologise for not giving a full reply to your post before now, but I have been distracted.

Nations are not eternal entities. They come into existence and also cease to be.

I agree broadly with the definition of a nation adopted before the First World by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks. A nation is an historically evolved group of people living on a common territory, speaking a common language, with a common culture, and able to form an independent economy. By this definition, there was not a Jewish nation in Palestine before the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

The creation of the State of Israel was not the consequence of the success of a struggle for statehood by an actually existing nation, i.e. a stable indigenous population with a common language and culture. Those fighting for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine were in the main incomers, migrants from other countries. This is exemplified by the fact that only one of the twelve members of the first government of Israel was born in Palestine. Ten were born in Europe and one in North America.

In 1882, the Jewish population of Palestine was 24,000, representing 8.0% of the total.
In 1918, the Jewish population of Palestine was 60,000, representing 9.1% of the total.
In 1946, the Jewish population of Palestine was 543,000, representing 30% of the total.

[Source: Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, Ed. by Itamar Rabinovich and Jehuda Reinharz, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Mass., 2008. (pp.571-572)].

Jewish people in the world as a whole do not constitute a nation. However, it is clear to me that there now exists an Israeli Jewish nation, which came into being after the formation of the State of Israel. The language of that nation is Hebrew.

I would also argue that there was no distinct Palestinian Arab nation in 1900. When national consciousness first began to develop amongst the Arab people of Palestine, they considered themselves to be part of the Syrian nation. However, events have acted to consolidate a distinct culture and identity amongst the Palestinian Arab people, and they now constitute a nation.

On the former territory of British Mandate Palestine live two nations, and a number of ethnic minority groups. It seems to me that a just solution would be the creation of a single, secular, democratic bi-national republic with parity of esteem, the right of refugees to return, and guaranteed rights for ethnic minority ethnic groups

As for Pakistan. There was no Pakistani nation when the state called Pakistan was created in 1947. The population of the new state could be said to have consisted of a number of distinct nations. One of these nations was subjected to genocide when it fought to secede in 1971, and became the state known as Bangladesh. There have also been attempts at secession in Baluchistan

 

[PTK]

Fair play:

MK faces impeachment after accusing Israel of genocide

View attachment 407717

This is good news. We need to ensure this gets as much publicity as possible.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fair play:

MK faces impeachment after accusing Israel of genocide

View attachment 407717

He's a member of Hadash.

In March 2019, he was banned from contesting the elections by the Central Election Committee due to what it described as provocative statements he had made, such as calling Ayelet Shaked a "neo-Nazi" and other statements against right-wing politicans.[1][6][clarification needed] the first time an individual had been barred from a party list. The decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.[7] He subsequently entered the Knesset as the alliance won six seats.

Ofer Cassif - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[agricola]

Horrific pictures all over social media of a PRCS ambulance that was hit by the Israelis, the four medics inside killed. I won't link them here for obvious reasons.

 

[Ĝasper]

I was wondering if it's worth having a sub thread on the forum, like Ukraine has.

editor wdyt?

 

[8ball]

Horrific pictures all over social media of a PRCS ambulance that was hit by the Israelis, the four medics inside killed. I won't link them here for obvious reasons.

The 3rd November attack?

 

[agricola]

The 3rd November attack?

Nope, happened today in Deir al-Balah:

 

[teqniq]

Interview here hosted by Rana Ayyub with Hind Khoudari a journalist in Gaza. It's quite long but well worth a watch imo:

Interview with Hind Khoudary

Hind Khoudary has been sending dispatches from Gaza to the world, she speaks to me about bearing witness to the mass killings of her people

ranaayyub.substack.com

 

[ska invita]

A feature, not a fault. If your national project relies on dehumanising, killing and displacing an entire ethnic group then having poorly trained conscripts enact that is a good way to build broad social/cultural complicity.

aye... its mainly about instilling hard militarisation into every generation, as it is with every country the enforces military service

 

[Knotted]

Petition to expel the zionist ambassador We Can Make an Impact.

To be honest I think she's quite useful.

 

[Pickman's model]

To be honest I think she's quite useful.

What for? There were dozens of uses for a dead John major, I struggle to think of three for the nefandous living zionist ambassador

 

[Knotted]

What for? There were dozens of uses for a dead John major, I struggle to think of three for the nefandous living zionist ambassador

She's tone deaf and is terrible at spinning Israel's actions. Much better her than a smooth bullshit artist like Mark Regev.

 

[Pickman's model]

She's tone deaf and is terrible at spinning Israel's actions. Much better her than a smooth bullshit artist like Mark Regev.

He's smooth in delivery but his words spark incredulity as they betray no connection to the real world

 

[Knotted]

He's smooth in delivery but his words spark incredulity as they betray no connection to the real world

I think there are people who are "sympathetic to Israel" in various ways and for various reasons who wouldn't see it that way.

 

[TopCat]

Hard choices for the West in Red Sea stand-off

Most of the world deplores the Houthi attacks on shipping, but there are barriers which make it difficult for the West to stop them.

www.bbc.co.uk

An interesting article about the wider conflict. Some focus on the blame held towards the US for feeding the Israeli war machine and hinder any ceasefire calls.

 

[TopCat]

Al-Houthi said in a post on X that what Yemeni armed forces were doing comes within the framework of legitimate defence, and that any action they face will have a reaction. He also described the resolution as a “political game”. “We call on the Security Council to immediately release 2.3 Million people from the Israeli-American siege in Gaza,” he said.

 

[The39thStep]

Live coverage of the South Africa application

Al Jazeera Live | Today's latest from Al Jazeera

Watch Al Jazeera’s live broadcast now

www.aljazeera.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a damning case, obviously. Doesn't take a legal genius to explain how this is genocide. If anything they have been relatively moderate and restrained in their arguments. I'm not sure about making the links all the way back to 1947. They are accurate, of course, but are they helpful in this case? I guess they're needed to establish how the Gaza Strip is not part of a separate state. We'll see.

Either way, have to agree with SA's final statement:

The consequences of not indicating clear and specific provisional measures and not taking steps to intervene while Israel disregards its international obligations before our eyes would, we fear, be very grave indeed:

• for the Palestinians in Gaza who remain at real risk of further genocidal acts
• for the integrity of the convention, for the rights of South Africa, and
• for the reputation of this court which is equipped with and must exercise its powers to afford an effective realisation of the rights under the convention.

Particularly that last bit. The court's credibility is shot if they can't call out a clear genocide when it is presented to them.

Tomorrow is Israel's turn. I shudder to think what kind of arguments they are going to use.

 

[The39thStep]

The application was fascinating to listen to . Bravo South Africa.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The application was fascinating to listen to . Bravo South Africa.

Probably the only country in the world that could have pulled off that particular approach, explicitly calling out Israel as an apartheid state. They have a fair few aces. Quoting Mandela at the start, naturally.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How will Israel respond? Lies and whataboutery plus but antisemitism, what else do they have? I would guess that they will react angrily to the attack on Israel's entire history as a country, but what facts do they have?

I am hopeful that the result will go the right way. Only the US has openly backed Israel. UK is keeping quiet, which suggests to me that they think Israel will lose.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

If SA does win, hopefully the US (and its support) will come under as much scrutiny as the state of Israel itself. Although you can imagine both right now being infuriated by and ignoring such an outcome.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If SA does win, hopefully the US (and its support) will come under as much scrutiny as the state of Israel itself. Although you can imagine both right now being infuriated by and ignoring such an outcome.

What do others do, though? The likes of the UK, Germany, etc, who have failed to call this out. The UK is an active participant in the ICJ. Are they going to abandon it to maintain support for Israel? What does renowned human rights lawyer Keir Starmer say?

I am nervous that they will bottle it. Find some technicality with which to let Israel off. That would have ugly consequences. To my untrained ear, SA presented an excellent case. Let's hope they didn't make any mistakes.

 

[agricola]

What do others do, though? The likes of the UK, Germany, etc, who have failed to call this out. The UK is an active participant in the ECJ. Are they going to abandon it to maintain support for Israel? What does renowned human rights lawyer Keir Starmer say?

I am nervous that they will bottle it. Find some technicality with which to let Israel off. That would have ugly consequences. To my untrained ear, SA presented an excellent case. Let's hope they didn't make any mistakes.

I think the big problem for the South African case is that it is very difficult to get states to actually define a genocide when it is happening, for fear of affecting their own interests (by making their actions / potential actions genocidal according to that definition). What is happening in Palestine is horrific but it is not unique in the rest of the world - so that part of the case where they point to the large numbers of deaths, displacements and effects on the medical services as being genocidal may in the final decision not be found to meet the legal definition of a genocide in the view of the court.

Where the Israelis are in far more trouble is with the provisional measures part (the interim ruling of a demand to stop to prevent a genocide taking place or to stop it), where the combination of what has happened these past three months and especially the endless stream of clearly genocidal statements from all levels of the Israeli state make it almost impossible to argue that a risk of a genocide does not exist here. The Israelis can argue about the military necessity of various acts for as long as they like (and no doubt will do that) but it is vastly more difficult to argue against so many examples of unforced speech, performed publicly, of a clearly genocidal tone as being not genocidal. There are even people in leadership positions still saying these things, even after being warned by the likes of the Israeli AG that such speech is potentially genocidal.

 

[PTK]

How will Israel respond? Lies and whataboutery plus but antisemitism, what else do they have? I would guess that they will react angrily to the attack on Israel's entire history as a country, but what facts do they have?

I am hopeful that the result will go the right way. Only the US has openly backed Israel. UK is keeping quiet, which suggests to me that they think Israel will lose.

I doubt that lawyers for the State of Israel will try whataboutery, as that is not at all a plausible legal argument.

(“You are charged with stealing £50.”
“What about Jimmy Smith? – he nicked £100”.
“Jimmy Smith is not on trial in this court.”)

They will say that states have the right to self-defence, and that the State of Israel has taken every care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, and that the aim is to defeat Hamas, not destroy the Palestinian people, and the fact that it is not doing the same things in the West Bank proves that it does not have genocidal intent with respect to the Palestinian people. There have been temporary interruptions to the passage of humanitarian supplies, but these interruptions were made with the intention of destroying the Palestinian people, but were the unfortunate outcome of warfare.

 

[PTK]

I think the big problem for the South African case is that it is very difficult to get states to actually define a genocide when it is happening, for fear of affecting their own interests (by making their actions / potential actions genocidal according to that definition). What is happening in Palestine is horrific but it is not unique in the rest of the world - so that part of the case where they point to the large numbers of deaths, displacements and effects on the medical services as being genocidal may in the final decision not be found to meet the legal definition of a genocide in the view of the court.

Where the Israelis are in far more trouble is with the provisional measures part (the interim ruling of a demand to stop to prevent a genocide taking place or to stop it), where the combination of what has happened these past three months and especially the endless stream of clearly genocidal statements from all levels of the Israeli state make it almost impossible to argue that a risk of a genocide does not exist here. The Israelis can argue about the military necessity of various acts for as long as they like (and no doubt will do that) but it is vastly more difficult to argue against so many examples of unforced speech, performed publicly, of a clearly genocidal tone as being not genocidal. There are even people in leadership positions still saying these things, even after being warned by the likes of the Israeli AG that such speech is potentially genocidal.

Given the difficulties of defining genocide, I think that "crimes against humanity" is a better charge, but I believe that the court is not obliged to order an immediate stop for crimes against humanity as it is with possible genocide.

 

[The39thStep]

I doubt that lawyers for the State of Israel will try whataboutery, as that is not at all a plausible legal argument.

(“You are charged with stealing £50.”
“What about Jimmy Smith? – he nicked £100”.
“Jimmy Smith is not on trial in this court.”)

They will say that states have the right to self-defence, and that the State of Israel has taken every care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, and that the aim is to defeat Hamas, not destroy the Palestinian people, and the fact that it is not doing the same things in the West Bank proves that it does not have genocidal intent with respect to the Palestinian people. There have been temporary interruptions to the passage of humanitarian supplies, but these interruptions were made with the intention of destroying the Palestinian people, but were the unfortunate outcome of warfare.

Just run that last sentence from this plausible legal argument again please