Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion



Netanyahu speech.

The attack on Gaza is about eliminating Hamas, IDF are heroic fighters and he will not recognise a Palestinian state.

Par for the course for ( elected leader of this democracy) the leader of Israel.

What gets me is US and UK ( including in UK the opposition) going on supporting this load of bollox.

TBF I prefer honest ethnic cleansers like Moshe Dayan. Who said it how it is. Getting rid of Palestinians is what Zionism is all about and its perfectly understandable if they hate us.
 
Last edited:
Watched the latest excellent Al Jazeera discussion programme Inside Story.

This time about internal Israeli politics.

Contributors from the Israeli liberal paper Haaretz / +972 online magazine and someone from Israeli Palestine organisation

At end I was non plussed.

Yes lots of Israelis hate Netanyahu. There are big divisions in Israeli society.

Throughout this I thought what does this mean for Palestinians on West Bank and Gaza?

Not much. Most Israelis support the "war effort"

Its who is doing it and how its done that it the question. Not the fact that IDF are mass killing Palestinians and destroying Gaza. Also way war is being fought means no hostage deal. I did not get impression from contributors that the deaths of Palestinians is a major issue in Israel. Also the political turmoil ( unrelated to Palestinians) between different sectors of Israeli society at each others throats has not been resolved. The "reforms" that Netanyahu and the right have been trying to bring in to judiciary are still there. Just set aside for the moment.

Comes across to me that Netanyahu is a clever operator.

His survival depends on the right. And pursuing the war.

If he can make it until Trump gets elected he is home free. He does not have to call an election for two years.

Biden he is ignoring. Biden puts up with that.

The main rival is Benny Gantz.

Can't say any of this makes me think just resolution of this conflict is on the cards.

 
Last edited:
Essay by Ilan Pappe putting forward that what we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of the Zionist project. He does however predict that things will get much worse for the Palestinians before the end. Essay is a transcript of a talk he gave 21/01/2024:

It is dark before the dawn, but Israeli settler colonialism is at an end - IHRC
I've read it but I can't see in the essay where he explains why he thinks Israel as a zionist state is about to end...what is the evidence for it, can anyone explain to me?
 
Rachel Reeves is anti-democratic. If she will not even enter into a debate about her position, then how can there be democracy?

 
Ah thank you, I think that's the phrase I've been looking for for a while. As I've said before I find it distasteful (on the Jewish side) to be debating whether it's 'technically' genocide. Talking about it terms of 'crimes against humanity' is a harder one to try to justify and I guess less likely to induce a knee-jerk reaction than 'genocide', which is so freighted for Jews. As my other half was saying, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on among the community - a lot of people just cannot believe, do not want to believe, that Jews could commit genocide, or indeed crimes against humanity. And I get that, but we have to push on and examine it - Israel has put us in that position, sadly.

One of the things my other half discussed last night was that one of the main refutations of the ICJ judgement was the difficulty of proving intent; he mentioned that the casualties in Gaza seem way beyond the usual collateral, that they just keep going and going with high-casualty attacks at intensely populated sites.
Proving intent is the biggest element of proving it's genocide, I actually think Israel won't be charged with that because of that critical element...
 
I was just saying to him that yes, the idea that Jews could commit genocide is a profoundly offensive one. But we shouldn't be so caught up in how offensive it is as a concept not to consider the possibility of it being true.
Out of interest why is it offensive?
 
Out of interest why is it offensive?
Let me try to untangle this, I'm not sure I'll be able to express it well.... when I say offensive in that context I'm not talking about a 'how very dare you say that' offense, but in terms of a feeling of existential outrage to consider that Jews could have gone through the Holocaust and then a Jewish nation commit acts of genocide. One sort of recoils from it.

At the same time many Jews feel that people are deliberately using the accusation to be hurtful and provoking towards us, that kind of offense - and I think some people are - but it doesn't mean we can discount that there is also a point beyond that and most people mean it in a sincere, and not target-edly antisemitic way.
 
Let me try to untangle this, I'm not sure I'll be able to express it well.... when I say offensive in that context I'm not talking about a 'how very dare you say that' offense, but in terms of a feeling of existential outrage to consider that Jews could have gone through the Holocaust and then a Jewish nation commit acts of genocide. One sort of recoils from it.

At the same time many Jews feel that people are deliberately using the accusation to be hurtful and provoking towards us, that kind of offense - and I think some people are - but it doesn't mean we can discount that there is also a point beyond that and most people mean it in a sincere, and not target-edly antisemitic way.
For me, it's reached the point where it's simply impossible to call it anything else. I was cautious about saying it at first, but not now.

The accusation is often levelled that Israel is singled out unfairly, but afaic to refuse to call this a genocide now is itself singling Israel out for special treatment. That Jews were the victims of the most horrific case of genocide in modern history doesn't absolve Israel in perpetuity. That idea, promoted by the Israei govt, is one that I find pretty offensive.
 
The accusation is often levelled that Israel is singled out unfairly, but afaic to refuse to call this a genocide now is itself singling Israel out for special treatment. That Jews were the victims of the most horrific case of genocide in modern history doesn't absolve Israel in perpetuity. That idea, promoted by the Israei govt, is one that I find pretty offensive.
Absolutely - and it drives me nuts that some Jewish people are literally saying 'We went through the Holocaust so it's impossible for Jews to commit genocide'
 
Rachel Reeves is anti-democratic. If she will not even enter into a debate about her position, then how can there be democracy?

Saw that on instagram.
Yeah...it's as if she is being controlled.
 
Once an event passes out of living memory, those who lived through it are no longer around to hold people to account for weaponising history to their own ends, whether those ends are militaristic, nationalistic, or indeed genocidal. We see that with the changing nature of Remembrance here in the UK. 'Never Again' is no longer the refrain.

In the case of the Holocaust, the survivors who bore witness are nearly all gone. The likes of Primo Levi are no longer around to hold anyone to account. There was a furore in Italy last month after a Levi quote was used on a pro-Palestinian poster - 'what happened could happen again'. In response, a (self-appointed) Italian Jewish leader claimed possession and said 'Leave Primo Levi to our memory. Have the dignity to show your thoughts without offending the memory of a survivor, and find other citations'.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/primo...ter-draws-protest-from-italian-jewish-leader/

This is the Primo Levi who was profoundly depressed by the rise of nationalism in Europe near the end of his life. This is the Primo Levi who said this of the Palestinians' situation: 'We are talking of what we might call a "Nation", because in the Arab world things are always difficult to define, which found itself without a country. And this is a point of contact with the Jews. There is a recent Palestinian diaspora that has something in common with the Jewish diaspora of two thousand years ago.' He didn't say the widely misattributed 'Palestinians are the Jews of Israel', but he did come close to saying it.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/false-syllogisms-troublesome-combinations-and-primo-levis-politic/

Levi's legacy is complex in many ways as he was a supporter of the idea of Israel, but as mentioned in the above link, his final legacy from his final book The Drowned and the Saved is his concept of the Grey Zone. Where would he have placed today's Israel within that zone? When Levi said 'what happened could happen again', he didn't just mean 'to Jews'. In 1982, he said 'I retain a close sentimental tie with Israel, but not with this Israel.’ There is no doubt that he would have been horrified by the Israel of 2024. And his legacy - his urgent question If this is a man... - belongs to all of us, including Palestinians.
 
There is also this determination that's kind of baked into Israel that Jews will 'never be victims again', even to the point, it seems, of being ceaseless aggressors in the minds of people like Netanyahu.

It's not just about the Holocaust, it's also a response to centuries of antisemitism the characterised Jews as weak, effeminate, feeble. Indeed, traditionally the ideal of a Jewish man was a Torah scholar and hunters/soldiers were generally seen, as enshrined in the Old Testament, as brutal and animalistic. They were useful people to have around, but rather distateful.

Israel I think made quite a bit deal in its inception that it would create a more macho, rugged kind of Jew who built things with his own hands (let's face it they would have only been talking about men initially) and basically prove to the world we weren't wimps. But be careful what you wish for...
 
There has been a prominent banner at the marches 'With the Oppressed, Never the Oppressor'. It's held by members of a Jewish group.

This old article from Al Jazeera actually does misattribute that quote to Primo Levi. I think it's important to clarify that he didn't say it. However, the point is simple enough. Invoking Jewish suffering to justify Palestinian suffering is warped thinking.

Jewish suffering, Palestinian suffering
 
Absolutely - and it drives me nuts that some Jewish people are literally saying 'We went through the Holocaust so it's impossible for Jews to commit genocide'
Quite. I've also heard "I can't be racist because I'm Jewish", which is always argued from a European Jewish position rather than a Sephardic, Mizrahi etc position. The claim falls apart when you see the likes of Jake Wallis Simons or Stephen Pollard tweeting what is clearly racist shite or the spectacle of David Baddiel wearing blackface.
 
This is the Primo Levi who was profoundly depressed by the rise of nationalism in Europe near the end of his life. This is the Primo Levi who said this of the Palestinians' situation: 'We are talking of what we might call a "Nation", because in the Arab world things are always difficult to define, which found itself without a country. And this is a point of contact with the Jews. There is a recent Palestinian diaspora that has something in common with the Jewish diaspora of two thousand years ago.' He didn't say the widely misattributed 'Palestinians are the Jews of Israel', but he did come close to saying it.
Interesting, gsv was just saying the other day that we never talk about the fact that, in essence, the Palestinians are the Jews that never left the region.

I've also been thinking a lot about the 'colonisation' angle lately - I think a lot of Jews mistake left-wing critiques of colonisation as specifically antisemitic when I can see they are just genuinely critiques about colonisation, and not because the 'colonisers' are Jews. I've seen the argument turned around by some saying 'But the Jews are a prime example of people taking back their land, you'd think the anti-colonial types should applaud that'.

I honestly don't know how much headway anyone can make with arguments about the Jews are from Israel, or near enough Israel, and they're just going back to where they are from. I can tell you this, that the thing that struck me forcefully on my first visit to Israel age 14 was a sense that Israelis and Palestinians were, in so many ways, the same people. Take away the trappings and dress both in the same clothes and I doubt many people could tell the vast majority of Palestinians and Israeli Jews from one another. Though the culture of the Jewish Askenazi majority can certainly be said to have been 'Europeanised' and we are the Jews who have not been in the region for a millennia or more, Israeli Jews are not total aliens transplanted to the Middle East by any chalk, they're not speaking a European language either.

As gsv was saying this morning - for centuries we were villified as a people without a homeland and therefore parasites on wherever we lived - then we get a homeland, as close as one might reasonably be said to be 'where we are from' (maybe there are geo-history experts here who can contradict this) and we are villified as colonisers, although the question is begged whether that is because of Israel's conduct or if it would always have been the case just for being there. And remember, he says this as by no means a fan of Israel.

I've seen an increase in some (rather unpleasant, I think) 'Israelis can just go back to Poland and Germany because that's where they're from' type rhetoric. Not sure what point I'm getting to, but maybe to say it is not as simple as 'Israeli Jews are just a bunch of European colonisers so they have zero right to a homeland in the Middle East' and that maybe by focusing on the colonising angle some people are hoping this makes the idea of potentially disestabilishing a Jewish homeland more morally acceptable?
 
Last edited:
Interesting, gsv was just saying the other day that we never talk about the fact that, in essence, the Palestinians are the Jews that never left the region.

I've also been thinking a lot about the 'colonisation' angle lately - I think a lot of Jews mistake left-wing critiques of colonisation as specifically antisemitic when I can see they are just genuinely critiques about colonisation, and not because the 'colonisers' are Jews. I've seen the argument turned around by some saying 'But the Jews are a prime example of people taking back their land, you'd think the anti-colonial types should applaud that'.

I honestly don't know how much headway anyone can make with arguments about the Jews are from Israel, or near enough Israel, and they're just going back to where they are from. I can tell you this, that the thing that struck me forcefully on my first visit to Israel age 14 was a sense that Israelis and Palestinians were, in so many ways, the same people. Take away the trappings and dress both in the same clothes and I doubt many people could tell the vast majority of Palestinians and Israeli Jews from one another. Though the culture of the Jewish Askenazi majority can certainly be said to have been 'Europeanised' and we are the Jews who have not been in the region for a millennia or more, Israeli Jews are not total aliens transplanted to the Middle East by any chalk, they're not speaking a European language either. And remember, he says this as by no means a fan of Israel.

As gsv was saying this morning - for centuries we were villified as a people without a homeland and therefore parasites on wherever we lived - then we get a homeland, as close as one might reasonably be said to be 'where we are from' (maybe there are geo-history experts here who can contradict this) and we are villified as colonisers, although the question is begged whether that is because of Israel's conduct or if it would always have been the case just for being there.

I've seen an increase in some (rather unpleasant, I think) 'Israelis can just go back to Poland and Germany because that's where they're from' type rhetoric. Not sure what point I'm getting to, but maybe to say it is not as simple as 'Israeli Jews are just a bunch of European colonisers so they have zero right to a homeland in the Middle East' and that maybe by focusing on the colonising angle some people are hoping this makes the idea of potentially disestabilishing a Jewish homeland more morally acceptable?

I think that's a very good way of looking at it. They may not be Jews any more, having mostly converted to a religion that didn't exist 2,000 years ago, but Egyptians are still the people of the Pharaohs despite now being majority Muslim. They still see that as part of their heritage.

Gramsci has linked before on this thread to quotes from figures in Zionist movements of the 20s and 30s who wanted to make common cause with Palestinians. I think my question now would be to ask: is that aspiration still a viable one? Can a Jewish homeland be reimagined as somewhere that is inclusive rather than exclusive, for all the people who call the area home, regardless of their current religion or cultural traditions? (Particularly the case, perhaps, given that different groups of Jewish Israelis themselves have very different cultural traditions.)

In my angrier moments over the last few months, I have thought that from a Palestinian perspective, why shouldn't they think that the Israelis should fuck off back where they came from? Why should Europe's crimes be their problem? But you're right, of course, that that is a non-starter. In which case, the question becomes: how to make amends?
 
Last edited:
Quite. I've also heard "I can't be racist because I'm Jewish", which is always argued from a European Jewish position rather than a Sephardic, Mizrahi etc position. The claim falls apart when you see the likes of Jake Wallis Simons or Stephen Pollard tweeting what is clearly racist shite or the spectacle of David Baddiel wearing blackface.
There are Irish people who claim that Irish people cannot be racist.

It seems to me that this is all a variation on "some of my best friends are Black".

How can I, given the history of "my people", possibly be racist like those people who persecuted "my people"?
 
I think that's a very good way of looking at it. They may not be Jews any more, having mostly converted to a religion that didn't exist 2,000 years ago, but Egyptians are still the people of the Pharaohs despite now being majority Muslim. They still see that as part of their heritage.

Gramsci has linked before on this thread to quotes from figures in Zionist movements of the 20s and 30s who wanted to make common cause with Palestinians. I think my question now would be to ask: is that aspiration still a viable one? Can a Jewish homeland be reimagined as somewhere that is inclusive rather than exclusive, for all the people who call the area home, regardless of their current religion or cultural traditions? (Particularly the case, perhaps, given that different groups of Jewish Israelis themselves have very different cultural traditions.)

In my angrier moments over the last few months, I have thought that from a Palestinian perspective, why shouldn't they think that the Israelis should fuck off back where they came from? Why should Europe's crimes be their problem? But you're right, of course, that that is a non-starter. In which case, the question becomes: how to make amends?
That reminds me of those Irish nationalist who have said of unionists in the North of Ireland "If they think that they are British, then why do they not move to Britain?"
 
Have sufficient Palestinians been killed and injured now?
The Modern Moderate Face of Moderation has a feeling that it may be immoderate to kill more than 40 times the number of civilians that have been killed in Ukraine as a proportion of the population.
 
Back
Top Bottom