Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Pickman's model said:
I don't think they're really interested in the territory as such or they wouldn't be risking making the aquifer utterly useless. They're much more interested in making rafah a charnel house.
Click to expand...
On the point of the aquifer, you mean regarding pouring in sea water? I may have missed some reporting, and of course most reporters have been killed, but to my memory there was only a very limited recorded example of that happening.

I have to push back though, of course they're interested in the territory, that conference a couple of weeks back with the new map should leave no doubt.
 
ska invita said:
On the point of the aquifer, you mean regarding pouring in sea water? I may have missed some reporting, and of course most reporters have been killed, but to my memory there was only a very limited recorded example of that happening.

I have to push back though, of course they're interested in the territory, that conference a couple of weeks back with the new map should leave no doubt.
Click to expand...
oh they'll grab the land but i think they're more interested in having the associated hydrocarbons than making that spot of desert bloom
 
Aladdin said:
I've felt that this was Netanyahu's plan for a while now.
It's pretty obvious he is going to kill many more Gazans and leave thousands more to starve and die in Rafah.

What I cannot fathom is the fact that the Israelis must have so much influence over the mainstream media. Ireland has had full on protests weekly. People are shouting from the rooftops about this genocide. I switch on any western station and they are all singing from the same page.

Why is the world afraid of Israel?

Why are western media not showing what Israel is doing to the people in Gaza?
Click to expand...
It's partly because of Israel advocacy groups that our media orgs sing from the same hymn sheet. BICOM is one; AIPAC is another; each one produces press releases (propaganda). Then, there are the embassies in individual countries, whose job it is to schmooze politicians and put pressure on the media to comply. Phrases like "the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza" appear to come directly from the Israeli Public Relations Ministry and are channeled through embassies and advocacy groups. Of course, we can't forget the role that hasbara operatives play in all of this.
 
Pickman's model said:
This is one of those 'they won't kettle all of us on whitehall' moments when it's been explicitly said that the zionists want to kill fucktons of people but you think they're really trying to persuade the Palestinians to leave.

Where do you think they will go? There are three possible choices, namely the zionist entity, the sea and Egypt. Do any of those strike you as likely? Do you think the Egyptians will open the frontier?

This seems to be heading toward the depopulation of the gaza strip as many many thousands of people are going to starve to death or die of disease. There isn't the shelter in gaza any more to house people. This ends when hundreds of thousands of people are dead, not tens of thousands as we are atm. You don't seem to have grasped the horror of the thing, if forcing people out was on the cards it'd have happened by now.
Click to expand...
Sadly I agree, as i previously wrote the israelis could and possibly will exterminate the entire population of Gaza without comeback. The increasingly horrendous war crimes have reached ISIS levels of barbarity and the future is just too horrendous to contemplate. This can only be resolved with the end of the abomination that is the present 'state of israel', the fascist entity whose existence is a stain on humanity.

Unfortunately that end would be accompanied with their Samson Option, without hesitation they would take major European cities with them as they have made clear.
 
Forest Fire Latest: Starmer Still Refuses to Call Fire Brigade

Keir Starmer has today reaffirmed his refusal to call on the fire brigade to extinguish the forest fire that has been raging for the past four months, leading to unprecedented loss of life.

“It is no good simply pouring water on the fire, without removing the causes of the fire. We need a sustainable cease-fire. We need to ensure that the trees are uprooted, so that a fire cannot break out again” said the Labour Leader in a speech in the Colonel Reginald Dyer Memorial Hall in Goring -by-Sea, Sussex.
 
Aladdin said:
While the Superbowl distracts
Gazans are murdered in Rafah...
67 dead in 24 hrs.
Click to expand...
Overall, the health ministry in Gaza says 164 people have been killed in the past day.

The 67 people in Rafah were killed as part of a distraction so Israeli Special Forces could rescue 2 people.

Every day I look at the headlines and see one hundred and something people killed in the last 24 hours. Every day. And then I wonder who they all are...
 
Knotted said:
I realise this is a few days old and I actually half agree with you, but I would say the idea that Israel needs to maintain a demographic Jewish majority against an indigenous population is deeply baked even for the Israeli left.
Click to expand...
It's been there since the start so this can be no surprise. It's understandable, honestly from the perspective of a very small, very new nation, founded in horrible historical circumstances in a basically hostile environment. That's not to condone it, but it has to be understood. But it doesn't have to be that way, and there's always been a small but pretty vocal minority of israelis who has believed that.

However, Israel is affected by the same global cultural forces as the rest of us, it's culturally divided already and its past is violent - like (nearly?) all other nation states, it was born in violence. The difference is, we've seen this violence, we're seeing it. It's not that there's little equality between the two sides - we've seen that in other settler states. And it's not about the religion or culture of the main aggressor, though I'll come to that.

Knotted said:
Two state solution, end the occupation, stop "behaving badly" can also mean kerp the Arabs out.
Click to expand...
Yes, because on both sides (indeed both sides) there is a dangerous (and not that small) minority who simply will not compromise. Two states is a short-term half-solution that satisfies none of those people, but that a more moderate majority on each side will accept with relief. But it's a recipe for instant war because extremists will. Not. Accept it. There can be, and has been, no compromise.

Knotted said:
You may regard maintaining a Jewish majority as being separate to the question of the Jewish character of the state. Nobody cares about Anglican majorities in the UK, racist obsessions do not revolve around that; so maybe by drawing that comparison you don't see the Jewish character of the state as being a demographic insistence.
Click to expand...
No - in part because 'anglicanism' is a sect, not a religion. If you use the proper comparison with Judaism, which is Christianity, then yes there is absolutely plenty of Christianity in far-right "culture". Fash love Christianity in fact lots of those people definitely consider themselves zionist and explicitly and vocally 'stand with Israel'. Partly out of Biblical urges, but IMO mainly out of islamophobia and racism which easily trumps any lingering antisemitism they might also feel.

And all of this suits the current regime very well, though it does Israel and its people - Jewish, Christian or Muslim - no favours. And in no way is it essential to Christianity, any more than it is to Judaism. Or Islam now I find myself writing out loud.

But also, immigration to Israel continues apace as many who grew up there leave, for - well, nearly anywhere there's not a constant (and very unjustly prosecuted) conflict going on. Demographics in 2024 is a difficult pretext to justify given the mixing there from half the world at this point - but the kinds of people who actually value and talk about race there are the kinds of people that also consider a secular or ethnically mixed Israeli from Tel Aviv or Haifa or Eilat a kind of degenerate non-jew.

For most people there now I expect it's about perceived security, and maybe also culture. Not race as such. I think in reality 'demographics' in this context just means who is an observant Jew or identifies as Jewish. Whose grandparents might actually have been from Germany, Russia, Morocco and Yemen. Ethnically Jewish (even if that really is an actual thing) is less important in Israel with every passing and mixing generation - whereas cultural jewishness probably gets stronger there.

And yet this still is not a reason for any extraordinary finger pointing. What I'm saying is it's the same kind of Culture War there as we have here; indeed I'd say the modern state of Israel has made some exemplary contributions to the hyper-partisan, violent, hypocritical and offensive 'Culture Wars' and their shameless, brutal stupidity.

Knotted said:
I do however think most Jewish Israelis see it that way and that is the conversation in Israel and that's in the Peace Now movement not just Likud and the far right.
Click to expand...
However, it's not an attitude essential to or representative of Judaism or jewishness. It's an attitude born in and from a particular context, as I've outlined above. Judaism and Jewishness isn't the point and can't be a pretext for extraordinary finger pointing.

Knotted said:
I would also say that the current dynamics where the Jewish majority could well turn on the 48 Palestinian minority
Click to expand...
...or indeed vice-versa...
Knotted said:
highlight the need for some system of quasi determination ir duel power. Near formal equality does not help against that political dynamic as it relies on Jewish Israeli liberal values that can and have dissolved.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But again it's not essential to Judaism or jewishness, or Islam or muslimness. Or even Christianity or the identifying thereas, fwiw.

I took a while to respond because I wanted to do so carefully. It's vital not to stray even one inch into anti-semitism, and to be honest where the line is. Then we can know that people who cross it or try to blur it are doing so deliberately. And we know what that is.
 
Last edited:
mojo pixy said:
Yes, because on both sides (indeed both sides) there is a dangerous (and not that small) minority who simply will not compromise. Two states is a short-term half-solution that satisfies none of those people, but that a more moderate majority on each side will accept with relief. But it's a recipe for instant war because extremists will. Not. Accept it. There can be, and has been, no compromise.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you've put care and attention into this post, but I want to just address this bit.

I also think two states is an unworkable solution, but for slightly different reasons. As we have seen from the ongoing settlement an bantustanisation of the West Bank, Israel has no interest in relinquishing its position of domination over the Palestinian territories.

But what does that leave us with? A single state with full and equal rights for everyone. What else could there be?

Reaching that position would require compromise from both sides. We've seen instances elsewhere where compromise looked unlikely but was finally reached. Northern Ireland, Colombia. Imperfect peace processes but reasonably effective ones in terms of ending the extreme violence. Among other things on the negotiation table would have to be the Jewish nature of the resultant state. Some things have to give. That's right up there on the list.

I don't agree that it is sliding into antisemitism to suggest that Israel needs to reimagine and reconstitute itself if there is ever to be peace in the region. Especially right now when, to be honest, I don't see 'Israel' as an idea holding much moral weight. And that's a massive understatement.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I appreciate that you've put care and attention into this post, but I want to just address this bit.

I also think two states is an unworkable solution,
Click to expand...
I think this kind of declaration is unhelpful tbh. It's only unworkable because certain people don't want it to work. The point isn't to just throw up hands and cry 'unworkable' but to find something that is. For too long extremists have controlled the story and words like 'unworkable' play into their story.
littlebabyjesus said:
but for slightly different reasons. As we have seen from the ongoing settlement an bantustanisation of the West Bank, Israel has no interest in relinquishing its position of domination over the Palestinian territories.
Click to expand...
Israel as governed very emphatically by a particular mob. There has been little political plurality there over the last 20 years, their 'overton window' has shifted in the same way as ours and over the same timescale. By now it really is hard to see a way, but some people need to. Not me, or even you btw.

littlebabyjesus said:
But what does that leave us with? A single state with full and equal rights for everyone. What else could there be?
Click to expand...
Fine, but that doesn't mean it must stop being The Jewish Nation State. What it has to do, is to be an equitable and pluralistic society for all its inhabitants. Like every other country is :hmm:

But insisting it can't be Jewish - even (imagine...) as it still exists and improves its behaviour and seeks solutions - is absurd and blatantly anti-semitic Unwillingness to seek solutions must be condemned, but in no way does Judaism or jewishness enter into this.

littlebabyjesus said:
Reaching that position would require compromise from both sides. We've seen instances elsewhere where compromise looked unlikely but was finally reached. Northern Ireland, Colombia. Imperfect peace processes but reasonably effective ones in terms of ending the extreme violence. Among other things on the negotiation table would have to be the Jewish nature of the resultant state.
Click to expand...
I emphatically disagree. Furthermore, no agreement will ever be reached with that as a starting point. If you can't see why, you need to take some time to reflect tbh because I can't explain any more clearly.

This is a problem of the Left:
littlebabyjesus said:
Some things have to give. That [edit to emphasize: you mean Judaism / jewishness] 's right up there on the list.
Click to expand...

. . .


littlebabyjesus said:
I don't agree that it is sliding into antisemitism to suggest that Israel needs to reimagine and reconstitute itself if there is ever to be peace in the region. Especially right now when, to be honest, I don't see 'Israel' as an idea holding much moral weight. And that's a massive understatement.
Click to expand...
Demanding that the only Jewish country in the world must either stop being Jewish, or vanish, is a demand with a really shit pedigree, and I really think you need to be able to see that in order to have a moral case at all here.
 
Last edited:
I'm just waiting and hoping that the Israeli government can be restrained and brought to some sense. It just looks like they aren't interested though. There is leverage though, lots of it. The US government just seems reluctant to use it. Amounting to tacit support almost, despite their words.
 
mojo pixy said:
It's been there since the start so this can be no surprise. It's understandable, honestly from the perspective of a very small, very new nation, founded in horrible historical circumstances in a basically hostile environment. That's not to condone it, but it has to be understood. But it doesn't have to be that way, and there's always been a small but pretty vocal minority of israelis who has believed that.

However, Israel is affected by the same global cultural forces as the rest of us, it's culturally divided already and its past is violent - like (nearly?) all other nation states, it was born in violence. The difference is, we've seen this violence, we're seeing it. It's not that there's little equality between the two sides - we've seen that in other settler states. And it's not about the religion or culture of the main aggressor, though I'll come to that.


Yes, because on both sides (indeed both sides) there is a dangerous (and not that small) minority who simply will not compromise. Two states is a short-term half-solution that satisfies none of those people, but that a more moderate majority on each side will accept with relief. But it's a recipe for instant war because extremists will. Not. Accept it. There can be, and has been, no compromise.


No - in part because 'anglicanism' is a sect, not a religion. If you use the proper comparison with Judaism, which is Christianity, then yes there is absolutely plenty of Christianity in far-right "culture". Fash love Christianity in fact lots of those people definitely consider themselves zionist and explicitly and vocally 'stand with Israel'. Partly out of Biblical urges, but IMO mainly out of islamophobia and racism which easily trumps any lingering antisemitism they might also feel.

And all of this suits the current regime very well, though it does Israel and its people - Jewish, Christian or Muslim - no favours. And in no way is it essential to Christianity, any more than it is to Judaism. Or Islam now I find myself writing out loud.

But also, immigration to Israel continues apace as many who grew up there leave, for - well, nearly anywhere there's not a constant (and very unjustly prosecuted) conflict going on. Demographics in 2024 is a difficult pretext to justify given the mixing there from half the world at this point - but the kinds of people who actually value and talk about race there are the kinds of people that also consider a secular or ethnically mixed Israeli from Tel Aviv or Haifa or Eilat a kind of degenerate non-jew.

For most people there now I expect it's about perceived security, and maybe also culture. Not race as such. I think in reality 'demographics' in this context just means who is an observant Jew or identifies as Jewish. Whose grandparents might actually have been from Germany, Russia, Morocco and Yemen. Ethnically Jewish (even if that really is an actual thing) is less important in Israel with every passing and mixing generation - whereas cultural jewishness probably gets stronger there.

And yet this still is not a reason for any extraordinary finger pointing. What I'm saying is it's the same kind of Culture War there as we have here; indeed I'd say the modern state of Israel has made some exemplary contributions to the hyper-partisan, violent, hypocritical and offensive 'Culture Wars' and their shameless, brutal stupidity.


However, it's not an attitude essential to or representative of Judaism or jewishness. It's an attitude born in and from a particular context, as I've outlined above. Judaism and Jewishness isn't the point and can't be a pretext for extraordinary finger pointing.


...or indeed vice-versa...

Agreed. But again it's not essential to Judaism or jewishness, or Islam or muslimness. Or even Christianity or the identifying thereas, fwiw.

I took a while to respond because I wanted to do so carefully. It's vital not to stray even one inch into anti-semitism, and to be honest where the line is. Then we can know that people who cross it or try to blur it are doing so deliberately. And we know what that is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that considered reply. I like the last paragraph in particular.

I think there are reasonable objections to concept of Israel as Jewish state that don't essentialise Jewishness. And that's because of the historical, political and demographic context. There may be good objections to those objections but that still doesn't by itself mean anybody is essentialising Jewishness.

That said, I think the weak point in what you say is your hard distinction between the foundation of Israel and the present. I think it's very arguable that Israel is still being founded. I think from a Palestinian perspective there's a continuity from 1948 to 1967 to the crushing of the intifadas and the failures of the Oslo accords, to the horrors happening now. I don't think there's a reasonable distinction between messy, regrettable beginnings and bad, racist government.

I also think that your point about Jewish identity in Israel is both interesting and missing the immediate point. The point being that Palestinians have no say in that conversation of Jewishness and Jewish statehood even though they live under it in one way or another.

My general principled position is that unilateral declarations of national self-determination and/or independent statehood in contexts with interpenetrated populations with competing national claims are to be opposed. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about Israel/Palestine or Bosnia or Northern Ireland. I'm open to changing my mind on that and I sometimes go back and forwards on it, but I really think it's a sensible position. In any case the key word there is  unilateral and I think in principle there could be a Jewish state that's arrived at bilaterally but that's not what we have now.

And yes that's all very abstract and in practice people can accept imperfection and move on with their lives, but there has to be process to allow compromise. And we don't have that yet. As I say Israel is still in the process of being born.
 
Last edited:
mojo pixy said:
I think this kind of declaration is unhelpful tbh. It's only unworkable because certain people don't want it to work. The point isn't to just throw up hands and cry 'unworkable' but to find something that is. For too long extremists have controlled the story and words like 'unworkable' play into their story.

Israel as governed very emphatically by a particular mob. There has been little political plurality there over the last 20 years, their 'overton window' has shifted in the same way as ours and over the same timescale. By now it really is hard to see a way, but some people need to. Not me, or even you btw.


Fine, but that doesn't mean it must stop being The Jewish Nation State. What it has to do, is to be an equitable and pluralistic society for all its inhabitants. Like every other country is :hmm:

But insisting it can't be Jewish - even (imagine...) as it still exists and improves its behaviour and seeks solutions - is absurd and blatantly anti-semitic Unwillingness to seek solutions must be condemned, but in no way does Judaism or jewishness enter into this.


I emphatically disagree. Furthermore, no agreement will ever be reached with that as a starting point. If you can't see why, you need to take some time to reflect tbh because I can't explain any more clearly.

This is a problem of the Left:


. . .



Demanding that the only Jewish country in the world must either stop being Jewish, or vanish, is a demand with a really shit pedigree, and I really think you need to be able to see that in order to have a moral case at all here.
Click to expand...

Just wonder how you explain for example someone like Ilan Pappe.

A Jew born in Israel who now advocates a one state solution.

Or Avi Shlaim and Jeff Halper.

Or a younger generation of British Jewish people like Barnaby Raine.

Or to take it closer to home the British Jew Tony Judt. Who moved to saying one state solution later in life. And got a lot of flack for it.

Ilan Pappe career in Israeli academia effectively ended due to his historical work.

To argue about a one state or two state solution is fair enough

To characterise supporting one state solution as anti Semitic is wrong.

Its going down the line that present Labour party has. That anti Zionism is anti semitism.

And I do not entirely agree with what you appear to say about present day Israel being run by a right wing mob. Removing Palestinians from land in one way or another has been done by Israeli governments of left and right since its inception.

In actual fact it is far from extremist to say one state solution. Its the opposite. Its saying their is a possibility that both Palestinians and Israeli Jews can live side by side as equals.

Forgive me If I got you wrong previously but your two state solution does involve removing all the settlers from West Bank?

One of the problems with two state solution is that different people mean entirely different things by it.

Those who support one state solution , like Ilan Pappe , see the two state / Oslo as a sham. In practise its not a state for Palestinians.

Pappe In his history of post 57 occupation of West Bank / Gaza does say even he at first thought it might mean something- a two state solution. Its basically been scuppered by settlement building to put it simply.

Others see two state solution as going back to the pre 67 border. Which mean withdrawal of settlement in West Bank as a minimum

Others see it a "demilitarised" Palestinian state.

The other is the bi national state I've already posted up about previously.

Last poll I looked at and Palestinians support two state. But what they mean is not what , unfortunately , Fatah and PLO got ensnared in.

I'd say one of the main issues has been settlement building in West Bank. This has been going on since 67. First under Labour.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
www.penguinrandomhouse.com

Haifa Republic: A Democratic Future for Israel by Omri Boehm: 9781681373935 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

A provocative argument for a new way of seeing Israel, Zionism, and the two-state solution. Haifa Republic: A Democratic Future for Israel is an urgent wake-up call. The philosopher Omri Boehm argues...
www.penguinrandomhouse.com www.penguinrandomhouse.com

The reason the book is call Haifi Republic is that this is town where still Palestinians and Jews live side by side.

He's not saying its perfect but its practical viewpoint that is saying there is a possibility that Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.

This pre dates the present war.

He say the political parties who were Liberal Zionist are now marginalised. Rabin was murdered and the dream of a peace lost.

There is a "Joint List" of Arab parties in Israel who were doing ok electorally.

His argument is that polling figure mean that some Liberal Zionist Israelis are now voting for the Joint List. Given demise of left Zionism as credible political force. He also say some Left Zionist parties have made unholy alliances with right to keep in power.

He sees this as opportunity for Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis to work together to build a new politics moved towards a One state which is bi national.
Click to expand...

Here is post on a bi national state. This is short and readable.

He does argue in it that there is a kind of Zionism that was bi national and got lost.

So he is saying, if I read him right, that he a kind of Zionist.

There is a difference between national self determination and having a specific state. If I remember the book right. He goes into political theory of states and its not something Im expert on. So using this he ends up with concept of bi national state.

Both sides can recognise the other in a bi national state so to speak.

I need to have another look at it.
 
Last edited:
mojo pixy said:
I think this kind of declaration is unhelpful tbh. It's only unworkable because certain people don't want it to work. The point isn't to just throw up hands and cry 'unworkable' but to find something that is. For too long extremists have controlled the story and words like 'unworkable' play into their story.

Israel as governed very emphatically by a particular mob. There has been little political plurality there over the last 20 years, their 'overton window' has shifted in the same way as ours and over the same timescale. By now it really is hard to see a way, but some people need to. Not me, or even you btw.


Fine, but that doesn't mean it must stop being The Jewish Nation State. What it has to do, is to be an equitable and pluralistic society for all its inhabitants. Like every other country is :hmm:

But insisting it can't be Jewish - even (imagine...) as it still exists and improves its behaviour and seeks solutions - is absurd and blatantly anti-semitic Unwillingness to seek solutions must be condemned, but in no way does Judaism or jewishness enter into this.


I emphatically disagree. Furthermore, no agreement will ever be reached with that as a starting point. If you can't see why, you need to take some time to reflect tbh because I can't explain any more clearly.

This is a problem of the Left:


. . .



Demanding that the only Jewish country in the world must either stop being Jewish, or vanish, is a demand with a really shit pedigree, and I really think you need to be able to see that in order to have a moral case at all here.
Click to expand...
Any country which claims to be a country primarily for one particular religion is a non-starter. Be that Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or whatever. Secularism is an easily achievable goal in any society. You simply cease to subsidise or proselytise that religion, cease to give it pride of place over other faiths or non-faiths. Sure, some people won't like that, but it's hardly an unachievable goal. A lot of Israelis aren't religious anyway, and most Arab citizens would describe themselves as Muslim or Christian or Druze. If a Jewish state derives its Jewishness from religion then I can see no legitimacy at all. Any more than states such as Pakistan have gained legitimacy or anything else from their Muslim identity.

Jewishness as nationality is more complicated. Jews from all over may identify with Jews from elsewhere, but they don't all by any means. Because of very long and complicated histories Jewish populations around the world speak different languages, eat different foods, have quite distinct cultures. The creation of an Israeli nationality has been accomplished by imposing a language, Hebrew, which was alien to most and by conflict with Palestinians and Arabs, defining the nation by antipathy to its neighbours. National identity is in large part pretence, invoking mythological creation myths, distorting histories, ignoring inconvenient facts. You don't have to have one language, even, just look At Switzerland.

What I'm trying to say here is pretty basic stuff. Religion:- bad. Nationalism:- bad. Both combined:- doubleplusungood.

Sure, lots of other countries are crap in all kinds of ways. Sure some people are anti-Semitic. But I have never been able to see any justification in any group of people anywhere taking over other peoples' homes and claiming an inalienable right to take whatever they choose. If they then proclaim that those homes are intrinsically linked to a particular religion or ethnicity - well that's crap, even if lots of people go along with such ideas.
 
Written by a leader of the PNI- Palestine National Initiative arguing now for a one state solution

This was written before the latest wave of violence.

www.theguardian.com

A just and democratic society that benefits all: that’s what Palestinians are fighting for | Mustafa Barghouti

On the 75th anniversary of the Nakba, we strive for a single state where all citizens have equal rights, says Mustafa Barghouti, leader of the Palestinian National Initiative
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Nothing can justify settler colonialism that is harmful to both the Palestinian and Jewish peoples. Confronted with a project aimed at the elimination of the Palestinians as a nation, we have remained resilient, determined not to give up our homeland.

We remain committed to the fight for freedom, and to a struggle for the creation of a just and democratic society that benefits all people without discrimination.

Today, 75 years after the Nakba, more than 6 million Palestinian refugees are unable to return to their homeland. Meanwhile, the number of Palestinians in the land of historic Palestine is at least equal to the number of Jewish Israelis.

. We cannot change the past, but the only solution for a post-apartheid future is a single democratic state where all citizens have equal rights and equal duties.
Click to expand...


A growing number of Palestinians believe that the only solution left is a single democratic state on the whole of historic Palestine without occupation, apartheid or discrimination.
Click to expand...

The person who wrote it can hardly be accused of being an extremist
 
Last edited:
ska invita said:
Disagree on a few points:

I don't think Israel is motivated to ethic cleansing in order to avoid "looking weak", they're motivated by hatred of Palestinians and wanting to expel and exterminate them to seize the territory, simple as that.
Click to expand...

I won't quibble with the other points but I think the above is a fair characterisation of the militant settler movement but that's a political minority even if their representatives are in government I think many who are opposed to the present government are also fully behind the war albeit with possible differences over prioritising the hostages. My sense is that a lot of Israelis are wanting to hit Gaza hard but don't care for colonising it. I think that's important to acknowledge because we could see a change of government that carries on where this one left off.
 
Knotted said:
I won't quibble with the other points but I think the above is a fair characterisation of the militant settler movement but that's a political minority even if their representatives are in government I think many who are opposed to the present government are also fully behind the war albeit with possible differences over prioritising the hostages. My sense is that a lot of Israelis are wanting to hit Gaza hard but don't care for colonising it. I think that's important to acknowledge because we could see a change of government that carries on where this one left off.
Click to expand...
All governments carry on from their predecessors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
290
Views
16K
agricola
agricola
Pickman's model
Israel and hezbollah after the exploding pagers
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
468
Views
20K
Gramsci
Gramsci
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