Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[PTK]

ICJP presents ‘first tranche’ of evidence to Met of collusion by UK officials in Israeli war crimes​

ICJP presents ‘first tranche’ of evidence to Met of collusion by UK officials in Israeli war crimes

Individuals, including 4 government ministers, 9 UK citizens fighting for IDF and others, accused in criminal complaint of complicity in war crimes against Gaza The ICJP’s solicitor advocate …

skwawkbox.org

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Israel’s war on Gaza triggered a war on free speech in the West

I was arrested over a single tweet I wrote in support of Palestinian resistance against Israel’s military.

www.aljazeera.com

This man was arrested for a tweet. In the Uk.

 

[ska invita]

feels like uk press has moved on

 

[Gramsci]

ICJP presents ‘first tranche’ of evidence to Met of collusion by UK officials in Israeli war crimes​

ICJP presents ‘first tranche’ of evidence to Met of collusion by UK officials in Israeli war crimes

Individuals, including 4 government ministers, 9 UK citizens fighting for IDF and others, accused in criminal complaint of complicity in war crimes against Gaza The ICJP’s solicitor advocate …

skwawkbox.org

When Met were asking for info on war crimes I doubt it was to enable prosection of those in leadership of the government and opposition.

Still fair play to the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians to show the double standard in West.

Its not going to get anywhere but it makes a point.

Criminal Complaint Alleging UK Government Ministers’ Complicity in War Crimes made to Scotland Yard - ICJP

London, 16th January 2024- The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) have handed […]

www.icjpalestine.com

Labour leadership issued notice of intention to prosecute UK politicians for complicity in war crimes in Gaza - ICJP

London 16 October 2023- This morning, ICJP issued Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and […]

www.icjpalestine.com

 

[Gramsci]

On that Owen Jones has got , rightly , increasingly incensed about how Gaza and support for Palestinians is portrayed.

Short piece on Zara Sultana. I do not watch parliament footage much but the beginning of this is something else.

She asks critical question about the bombing on Yemen.

For that the Rishi and a Tory MP basically accuse her of being a Hamas supporter.

In interview with Owen she does push to far this is about islamophobia.

IMO anyone who supports Palestinians and opposes what has happened in Gaza is likely to get this. Whether the personally are Muslim or not. And not just from Tories.

Its not just about Islamophobia its been pretty well the general line.

Watching her stand up for herself against the Tory leader and Tory MP and I was impressed.

It was interesting and annoying to see the Tory MP row back after her not crumpling at his comments.

Another annoying thing about this is that those who like to insinuate that support for Palestinians is support fro Hamas swear blind when stood up to that is not what they meant. Its all designed to make those who support Palestinians unreasonable. Whatever they do.

To add she ( and I think she is right on this) said these kind of accusations when she speaks up for Palestinians can have real world effects. She says she gets online abuse and threats every time she does. And leading Tories making these public comments helps legitimize this

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Another annoying thing about this is that those who like to insinuate that support for Palestinians is support fro Hamas swear blind when stood up to that is not what they meant. Its all designed to make those who support Palestinians unreasonable. Whatever they do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Zarah is great and, as a follower of her speeches, it never ceases to amaze me that she survives in Starmer's Labour party.

I do think supporters of Israel tend to be pretty dishonest in their arguments - whether it be how they portray the conflict (it all started on October 7th and it's purely about Gaza), their labelling of those who have empathy with the Palestinians as automatically supporters of Hamas, their blanking of Jews who are critical of Israel (IMO, there is an own racism here of seemingly marking all Jews as Zionist), or, if all else fails, playing the anti-Semite trump card.

 

[steveo87]

Glad to see the Metro showing restraint....

 

[magneze]

Jordan strikes Syria too apparently.

What I also noticed was that the UK is no longer striking Yemen - it seems to be just the US now. Not sure what to read into that.

 

[Rimbaud]

View attachment 408702

Glad to see the Metro showing restraint....

Tbh I'm starting to get a bit of anxiety about where this is going.

I feel like the war in Ukraine has warmed the world up to the idea of conflict with a nuclear armed power which falls short of certain red lines, so I feel like MAD may not be the deterrent it once was.

There are potential flashpoints that would amount to WW3 if they all occurred simultaneously.

First is the possibility of the US going to war with Iran, sparking a larger regional conflict. Trump victory could make this plausible as the religious nutters will be in power.

Second is the possibility of Russia calling what it might believe to be the bluff of NATO article 5 and attempting a blitzkrieg of the Baltics. If Trump wins and cuts aid to Ukraine and pulls out or at least expresses disinterest in NATO, this is quite plausible. If US is tied up with Iran this also becomes more likely. IMO some European countries would call the bluff and directly fight Russia in the Baltics.

Third is the big one which is Taiwan, if the first 2 events happen then China might see it is now or never. I reckon a conflict against the US navy in the Pacific which falls short of non-cyber attacks on US territory could happen on the understanding that it is limited in scope to a naval and air conflict so no MAD deterrence. This would likely also pull in Japan and ignite the Korean peninsula with the possibility of spreading to SE Asian if Vietnam and Philippines try to seize the moment to get China out of their coastal waters.

All combined that would be worthy of the name WW3 and it all feels dangerously plausible to me.

 

[kabbes]

Tbh I'm starting to get a bit of anxiety about where this is going.

I feel like the war in Ukraine has warmed the world up to the idea of conflict with a nuclear armed power which falls short of certain red lines, so I feel like MAD may not be the deterrent it once was.

There are potential flashpoints that would amount to WW3 if they all occurred simultaneously.

First is the possibility of the US going to war with Iran, sparking a larger regional conflict. Trump victory could make this plausible as the religious nutters will be in power.

Second is the possibility of Russia calling what it might believe to be the bluff of NATO article 5 and attempting a blitzkrieg of the Baltics. If Trump wins and cuts aid to Ukraine and pulls out or at least expresses disinterest in NATO, this is quite plausible. If US is tied up with Iran this also becomes more likely. IMO some European countries would call the bluff and directly fight Russia in the Baltics.

Third is the big one which is Taiwan, if the first 2 events happen then China might see it is now or never. I reckon a conflict against the US navy in the Pacific which falls short of non-cyber attacks on US territory could happen on the understanding that it is limited in scope to a naval and air conflict so no MAD deterrence. This would likely also pull in Japan and ignite the Korean peninsula with the possibility of spreading to SE Asian if Vietnam and Philippines try to seize the moment to get China out of their coastal waters.

All combined that would be worthy of the name WW3 and it all feels dangerously plausible to me.

Ah, ye’ll be reet.

 

[scalyboy]

View attachment 408702

Glad to see the Metro showing restraint....

More restraint than the IDF

 

[Knotted]

 

[Johnny Vodka]

‘Different rules’: special policies keep US supplying weapons to Israel despite alleged abuses

Revealed: review of internal state department documents shows special mechanisms have been used to shield Israel from US human rights laws

www.theguardian.com

Need to finish reading later, but seems pretty damning so far.

 

[PTK]

Interesting play on Radio 4

"A teacher is ordered to evacuate his apartment block before it's destroyed by a missile."

Drama on 4 - The Call - BBC Sounds

A teacher is ordered to evacuate his apartment block before it's destroyed by a missile.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mezzer]

Interesting play on Radio 4

"A teacher is ordered to evacuate his apartment block before it's destroyed by a missile."

Radio 4 - Listen Live - BBC Sounds

Listen live to BBC Radio 4 on BBC Sounds

www.bbc.co.uk

Afraid that the link doesn't link to it....

 

[belboid]

Afraid that the link doesn't link to it....

Drama on 4 - The Call - BBC Sounds

A teacher is ordered to evacuate his apartment block before it's destroyed by a missile.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[PTK]

Drama on 4 - The Call - BBC Sounds

A teacher is ordered to evacuate his apartment block before it's destroyed by a missile.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks. I have edited my post with the correct link. I did not realise that I had put a link to the live output. It is a good play, in my opinion, that is worth a listen.

 

[agricola]

I see Netanyahu has publicly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in any form, so its decision time for Sunak and co.

 

[ska invita]

I see Netanyahu has publicly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in any form, so its decision time for Sunak and co.

Nothing new, UK politicians will just drone on about a two state solution anyway

 

[agricola]

Nothing new, UK politicians will just drone on about a two state solution anyway

I am sure they'll try to, but I doubt it will work any more.

 

[Gramsci]

I see Netanyahu has publicly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in any form, so its decision time for Sunak and co.

Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war

PM rebuts White House by saying all territory west of Jordan River would be under Israeli security control

www.theguardian.com

My geography is not that great. But when he says west of Jordan river he does include West Bank occupied territories as not being any part of Palestinian state?

Or have I got this wrong?

If so he is pushing for the Greater Israel option.

 

[agricola]

Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war

PM rebuts White House by saying all territory west of Jordan River would be under Israeli security control

www.theguardian.com

My geography is not that great. But when he says west of Jordan river he does include West Bank occupied territories as not being any part of Palestinian state?

Or have I got this wrong?

If so he is pushing for the Greater Israel option.

All of it, though of course he's pushing for himself remaining in power rather than anything more organized.

 

[Gramsci]

On this subject Ive just finished the Palestinian historian book on the debates within Zionism about removal of Palestinian Arabs to make a Jewish State.

Expulsion of the Palestinians

In this meticulous work, based almost entirely on Hebrew archival material, Nur Masalha examines the Zionist concept of "transfer," or the expulsion of the Palestinian population to neighboring Arab lands. Masalha establishes the extent to which "transfer" was embraced by the highest levels of...

books.google.co.uk

This was always part of Zionism from the days of Herzl.

The books goes into detail into the discussions in Zionism about how to remove the non Jewish population from what they saw as the legitimate Jewish Homeland.

And this was not the right wing. The mainstream of Zionism in 1930s was led by David Ben Gurion and other Labour Zionists.

Who wanted a socialist Israel for Jews only.

The problem was how to get to this ideal.

Population transfer with aid of the Imperial authorities ( Britain) or support of US . " Population transfer" was seen as the moral way to do this. With land being set aside in other parts of middle east. The line the mainstream Zionists took was that Arabs had a lot of land and Palestinian Arabs could be rehoused elsewhere.

They took the population transfers between Greece and the new Turkish state as example. Also the possible population transfers post WW2 ( ie Germans being made to leave parts of the new Poland etc)

"population transfer" is discussed as the normal way of doing things. The moral side was plans to pay Palestinians to leave. Give them new homes to go to. The problem some Zionists brought up in 1930s was what if some refused to go. The issue of compulsion was envisaged as carrot and stick. Any new Israel state would make it difficult for non Jewish Arabs to remain. So in end they would go.

The problem was whether they would go willingly. And how to make them go.

Various tentative plans were adopted and politicians/ officials in UK and US were lobbied.

David Ben Gurion and others realised this was sensitive topic so whilst it was no secret decided tactful approach was required.

They thought there vision of a Greater Israel could be obtained through support of the great powers.

David Ben Gurion saw the initial borders of Israel as just the start. They always had their eyes on a Greater Israel. West Bank.

The point is Netanyahu is in long line of Zionists of left and right who have pursued this dream.

It always was inherent in Zionism from its early days.

Netanyahu is not some kind of aberration.

To add Chaim Weizmann was aware of all this and supported the idea of transfer.

 

[PTK]

Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war

PM rebuts White House by saying all territory west of Jordan River would be under Israeli security control

www.theguardian.com

My geography is not that great. But when he says west of Jordan river he does include West Bank occupied territories as not being any part of Palestinian state?

Or have I got this wrong?

If so he is pushing for the Greater Israel option.

A "Greater Israel" option would not necessarily be a bad thing. If the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were integrated into the State of Israel, and military rule ended, as happened to the Galilee in 1966, then Palestinian Arabs in those territories would get the vote, and therefore there would be, in theory, a Parliamentary route to establishing rights for Palestinian Arabs. However, Netanyahu spoke, not of integration, but of "security control", which would be a continuation of the status quo.

It is good news that the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Mexico have referred Israeli actions to the International Criminal Court (not to be confused with the International Court of Justice.) The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states.

 

[PTK]

On this subject Ive just finished the Palestinian historian book on the debates within Zionism about removal of Palestinian Arabs to make a Jewish State.

Expulsion of the Palestinians

In this meticulous work, based almost entirely on Hebrew archival material, Nur Masalha examines the Zionist concept of "transfer," or the expulsion of the Palestinian population to neighboring Arab lands. Masalha establishes the extent to which "transfer" was embraced by the highest levels of...

books.google.co.uk

This was always part of Zionism from the days of Herzl.

The books goes into detail into the discussions in Zionism about how to remove the non Jewish population from what they saw as the legitimate Jewish Homeland.

And this was not the right wing. The mainstream of Zionism in 1930s was led by David Ben Gurion and other Labour Zionists.

Who wanted a socialist Israel for Jews only.

The problem was how to get to this ideal.

Population transfer with aid of the Imperial authorities ( Britain) or support of US . " Population transfer" was seen as the moral way to do this. With land being set aside in other parts of middle east. The line the mainstream Zionists took was that Arabs had a lot of land and Palestinian Arabs could be rehoused elsewhere.

They took the population transfers between Greece and the new Turkish state as example. Also the possible population transfers post WW2 ( ie Germans being made to leave parts of the new Poland etc)

"population transfer" is discussed as the normal way of doing things. The moral side was plans to pay Palestinians to leave. Give them new homes to go to. The problem some Zionists brought up in 1930s was what if some refused to go. The issue of compulsion was envisaged as carrot and stick. Any new Israel state would make it difficult for non Jewish Arabs to remain. So in end they would go.

The problem was whether they would go willingly. And how to make them go.

Various tentative plans were adopted and politicians/ officials in UK and US were lobbied.

David Ben Gurion and others realised this was sensitive topic so whilst it was no secret decided tactful approach was required.

They thought there vision of a Greater Israel could be obtained through support of the great powers.

David Ben Gurion saw the initial borders of Israel as just the start. They always had their eyes on a Greater Israel. West Bank.

The point is Netanyahu is in long line of Zionists of left and right who have pursued this dream.

It always was inherent in Zionism from its early days.

Netanyahu is not some kind of aberration.

In the period after the First World War, Ben Gurion and some others argued that the Arab population of Palestine was mainly descended from the Jews Roman times, and believed that they would be integrated into the "Jewish people".

 

[Gramsci]

In the period after the First World War, Ben Gurion and some others argued that the Arab population of Palestine was mainly descended from the Jews Roman times, and believed that they would be integrated into the "Jewish people".

Where do you get that from?

Ive also read Ilan Pappes book on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and David Ben Gurion is one of the leading figures involved in it.

The book on Zionist thought - David Ben Gurion and other leading figures in what became Labour Zionism supported population transfer.

Palestinians when Israel was founded who had not been expelled lived under military rule until 1960s.

This was under Labour Zionism government led by David Ben Gurion. So do not see the integration bit myself.

 

[Gramsci]

Palestinians Under Military Rule in Israel, 1948-1966

Highlight - Governing the Lives of a Confined Population - The Palestinians who remained in Israel when the state was created lived formally under military rule from 1948 until the end of 1966. Over a two-...

www.palquest.org

 

[tim]

Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war

PM rebuts White House by saying all territory west of Jordan River would be under Israeli security control

www.theguardian.com

My geography is not that great. But when he says west of Jordan river he does include West Bank occupied territories as not being any part of Palestinian state?

Or have I got this wrong?

If so he is pushing for the Greater Israel option.

The West Bank is west of the Jordan. He's pushing for his political survival and anyway of avoiding being sent to an Israeli gaol, which was a distinct possibility even before the security failures in October.

 

[Raheem]

If the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were integrated into the State of Israel, and military rule ended, as happened to the Galilee in 1966, then Palestinian Arabs in those territories would get the vote

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war

PM rebuts White House by saying all territory west of Jordan River would be under Israeli security control

www.theguardian.com

My geography is not that great. But when he says west of Jordan river he does include West Bank occupied territories as not being any part of Palestinian state?

Or have I got this wrong?

If so he is pushing for the Greater Israel option.

From the River to the Sea. But somehow it's not terrorism when he says it.