Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Update:

8ball

The person who created this thread had threadreaderapp blocked. I asked them if this was the case and they unblocked it so here is the complete thread via threadreaderapp:


Cheers. :thumbs:

I got distracted in the time between last looking and my intended further tinkering.

The article isn’t quite how it is represented in the initial Twitter post (unless Israeli lifestyle articles are a long way from what we get here - by itself the post implied an open mocking of the Gazans), but it’s plain to see why it is both awful to read from one perspective and likely much less so from an average Israeli viewpoint.
 
Last edited:


Interesting article. The last paragraphs caught my eye..

The divisions within Jewish Israeli society that were evident in the period preceding this war will definitely re-emerge in some form. Essentially, this will intensify the contradiction between two camps within Israeli Jewish society - on the one hand, the messianic wing and, on the other, the modern, secular business section of the Israeli bourgeoisie. There will be moves by the messianic Zionists to annex the West Bank to Israel. But in terms of the regime that this will create, it will annex Israel to the regime of the West Bank: this repressive, authoritarian, theocratic regime would be extended in one form or another to the whole of Israel. But that would be inimical to the interests of the secular bourgeoisie, whose activities are essential for making Israel one of the world’s modern, developed capitalist countries.

How this will be resolved is, of course, a matter for conjecture. I cannot predict what will happen, but there will be trouble ahead and I think this internal contradiction will be very difficult to paper over.


He's talking about the tension between a majority (A) who actually just want to live in a 'normal', cosmopolitan, sunny beacon of western liberalism, and a small obnoxious minority (B) who use the bible to justify almost incredible cruelty, brutality and exceptionalism. I've mentioned how divided Israeli society is, and it is in many ways, including this.

There's a great deal of resentment among liberals and actually I even think your middle of the road conservatives, who stand-with-the-Golan, about the opprobrium and criticism that 'settlers' bring upon the nation, and worse that it costs their tax money to do (as much of the infrastructure for it is state funded.) A war will distract for a while, but will also bring on a crisis where that tension will have to give, and whatever form it takes won't I expect be pretty. Especially when family members start coming home in body bags - and for what? Some acres by the sea? The river to the sea? And to keep bibi out of jail obvs. At some point - well honestly, I wouldn't like to make rash predictions but I do think Israel will end up solving its own problems.

The problems of the Palestinians, they definitely require international action. And again, I think Israel is going to provoke that. I wonder then what happens in 'the only real democracy in the middle east'.
 
Interesting article. The last paragraphs caught my eye..

The divisions within Jewish Israeli society that were evident in the period preceding this war will definitely re-emerge in some form. Essentially, this will intensify the contradiction between two camps within Israeli Jewish society - on the one hand, the messianic wing and, on the other, the modern, secular business section of the Israeli bourgeoisie. There will be moves by the messianic Zionists to annex the West Bank to Israel. But in terms of the regime that this will create, it will annex Israel to the regime of the West Bank: this repressive, authoritarian, theocratic regime would be extended in one form or another to the whole of Israel. But that would be inimical to the interests of the secular bourgeoisie, whose activities are essential for making Israel one of the world’s modern, developed capitalist countries.

How this will be resolved is, of course, a matter for conjecture. I cannot predict what will happen, but there will be trouble ahead and I think this internal contradiction will be very difficult to paper over.


He's talking about the tension between a majority (A) who actually just want to live in a 'normal', cosmopolitan, sunny beacon of western liberalism, and a small obnoxious minority (B) who use the bible to justify almost incredible cruelty, brutality and exceptionalism. I've mentioned how divided Israeli society is, and it is in many ways, including this.

There's a great deal of resentment among liberals and actually I even think your middle of the road conservatives, who stand-with-the-Golan, about the opprobrium and criticism that 'settlers' bring upon the nation, and worse that it costs their tax money to do (as much of the infrastructure for it is state funded.) A war will distract for a while, but will also bring on a crisis where that tension will have to give, and whatever form it takes won't I expect be pretty. Especially when family members start coming home in body bags - and for what? Some acres by the sea? The river to the sea? And to keep bibi out of jail obvs. At some point - well honestly, I wouldn't like to make rash predictions but I do think Israel will end up solving its own problems.

The problems of the Palestinians, they definitely require international action. And again, I think Israel is going to provoke that. I wonder then what happens in 'the only real democracy in the middle east'.

Just looked up what he says on way to solve this.

He opposes two state solution and thinks One state solution is utopian. The Israeli working class ( he is looking at this from his Marxist perspective) has to much to lose to agree to one state. Ie it might be subject to inequality in a capitalist Israel but it stil has privileges.

Nor is Israel/ Palestine comparable to South Africa. South Africa had majority black population who did a lot of the work

Israel has expelled large numbers of Palestinians. Has it's own working class and can replace Palestinian workers with people from far east. Ie Palestinians refusing to work for Israel won't effect it. Unlike in South Africa.

Guerilla warfare wont work in Israel/ Palestine context either. It has no bases within Israel for example.

So his view is that only a regional revolution of other Arab states could lay ground for Israeli working class abandoning Zionism.

Meanwhile campaign for better rights etc but don't call for one or two states. But build a region wide network of socialists.

He quotes Moshe Dayan saying why there should be no two state solution. A singular Zionist who said in public what he really thought.


So he's not saying do nothing. But he's pessimistic in the short term.

He makes some interesting comments on colonialism and how its discussed from Marxist angle.
 
Last edited:
Hamas are terrorists who must surrender. Israel is a responsible state actor. The subtext here is that it is reasonable for Israel to attack Gaza for as long as it considers Hamas a threat.

Rather than just saying 'ceasefire' to both sides, further conditions are set for just one side. Hamas must release its hostages. Nothing is said about the hostages Israel has taken. Hamas must disarm. Nothing is said about Israel's arms. So if the fighting continues, it is Hamas's fault for refusing to surrender. It's entirely asymmetric.
 
It's not saying much, sadly. They call for a ceasefire but state that it requires both the release of hostages by Hamas (very doable and already on the table from Hamas) and the disarming of Hamas. Effectively they are calling for the immediate surrender of Hamas.

Isn’t that preferable to the current situation?
 
Yes. But they're not calling for Israel to stop because, you know, what they are doing is unspeakably evil. It's not much different from Starmer's waffle about a 'sustainable ceasefire'.
The Foreign Office defines a "sustainable ceasefire" as involving Hamas not being in power. In other words, as one of the war aims of the State of Israel as being met.
 
At least 'Ceasefire Now' isn't classed as antisemitic

yet

In the case of the Labour party its defined as going that way

Reason my MP and others were so torn about voting for a ceasefire is that calling for a ceasefire as SNP and my local Greens in Lambeth did is "divisive". Instead of bringing people together its enabling "divisions" as my local Labour Council say. Which for them is going against Lambeth as a multicultural borough.

This is a more sophisticated way to say that those who support a ceasefire are borderline anti Semitic.
 
Then if Hamas surrenders, nothing will have changed and Israel will have stopped.
That's not the point. Hamas are not the ones slaughtering hundreds of people every day and destroying homes, schools, hospitals. Hamas haven't displaced more than a million people into refugee camps that they are now threatening to bomb.

It is Israel that needs stopping here, not Hamas. Anything short of a call for Israel to stop immediately is worthless.
 
That's not the point. Hamas are not the ones slaughtering hundreds of people every day and destroying homes, schools, hospitals. Hamas haven't displaced more than a million people into refugee camps that they are now threatening to bomb.

It is Israel that needs stopping here, not Hamas. Anything short of a call for Israel to stop immediately is worthless.

You seem confused about whether Israel stopping is the point or not.

Do you mean you want Israel to stop so long as Hamas can continue to exist?
 
You seem confused about whether Israel stopping is the point or not.

Do you mean you want Israel to stop so long as Hamas can continue to exist?
of course I don't mean that. You're being obtuse now. Israel is doing the killing, and has been from 8 October onwards. It is Israel that needs to stop. Any call for a ceasefire that is contingent on Hamas giving up/surrendering/disarming is not really a call for a ceasefire at all.
 

This by head of Amnesty International and Center for civilians in conflict.

Point out ( and others have done the same) the Western double standard in relation to what is happening in Gaza as compared to elsewhere. Does not name Ukraine specifically. But might as well.

This quote below is why a ceasefire is needed now.

Recently, we have been particularly devastated by the intensity and scale of civilian killings and destruction caused by the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. This has happened with the support of several countries despite a pattern of violations of international laws including the complete siege imposed on Gaza’s population and the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of war.

This will upset those here and some western leaders whe in their eyes see IDF campaign is about Israel defending itself and eradicating Hamas.

But that is not the point.

The point is under a rules based international order wars are meant to be fought by states , including Israel, in way that follows rules on how civilians are treated.

Clearly Israel government / IDF are not doing that.

This is not about Hamas. Its about Israel been given the "exceptional" status.

This has been ongoing and causes resentment outside West.

And another "exception" is the Occupation. This has been going on since 67. Israel has flouted international rules - settlement building for example- but got away with it.

Its stealing of Palestinian land in 48 has been basically allowed. No right of return pushed by West countries.
 
of course I don't mean that. You're being obtuse now. Israel is doing the killing, and has been from 8 October onwards. It is Israel that needs to stop. Any call for a ceasefire that is contingent on Hamas giving up/surrendering/disarming is not really a call for a ceasefire at all.

No, it’s not a call for a ceasefire. It’s the
de facto end of it unless Israel’s real agenda is something else entirely than what they have stated.
 
I must say I have been following a lot of this on Al Jazeera.

I haven't heard Palestinian civilians calling for Hamas to surrender.

The military doctrine of IDF of using overwhelming force to break link between civilians and armed militants has not worked.

Whilst not everyone who is Palestinian supports Hamas seems to me clear that Palestinians are blaming this on Israel.

And in West Bank support for Hamas has increased on the ground due to them being seen to stand up to Israel. Unlike the discredited PA. Support for armed action has increased on West Bank. From whatever group.

Secondly if the issue for some is that extremists must be eradicated from the body politic then equally the extreme right who are part of the Israeli government should also be expected to no longer have any power.

So that "moderates" on both sides can negotiate.

The emphasis on Hamas having to surrender before any ceasefire is one sided.

It also falls into the this all started on 7th October line of thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom