Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Listening to that interview on WATO today with an Israeli Govt. rep. Can't remember the name, but apparently the problem with Gazans starving is that there's too much aid and no-one to distribute it. Fucking nauseating.
 
Listening to that interview on WATO today with an Israeli Govt. rep. Can't remember the name, but apparently the problem with Gazans starving is that there's too much aid and no-one to distribute it. Fucking nauseating.
Eylon Levy. He also said that the ratio of civilians to fighters killed was lower than in other wars.
 
I think we're at cross purposes here. When I saw the video I didn't take it as a general statement about Israel's historical right versus the Palestinians'. I saw it as a particular reference to the reports and videos that are out where Israeli settlers are turning up in the West Bank to eject Palestinians from their homes and take them for their own, backed by the Israeli army who will shoot Palestinians who resist.

Fair enough, I didn't think that but it's a way to look at it.

* * *

I still think there's a double standard here but it's enough for me to express that, I don't need anyone else to 'get' it. I'm certainly not ruining my day by getting into the weeds on it.
 
it wouldnt be a live issue if there was a peaceful two state or one state solution in the many decades past, but instead the incomplete settling process is continuing right now with the most barbaric ethnic cleansing taking place this second.

Of course this is true.

However, there is a sizeable number of people in the world - and the region - who just don't like there being a Jewish nation in the middle east. And without getting into a stupid back-and-forth that can never be resolved, I personally believe that even if Israel had been peaceful from the start (unlikely since it was seeded by war but let's momentarily imagine...) it would have had war forced onto it sooner or later, because it's widely hated not only for its behaviour but for its essence.

Sadly this is used by Israelis to justify some extremely cruel and shit behaviour, but that doesnt stop it remaining true.
 
Of course this is true.

However, there is a sizeable number of people in the world - and the region - who just don't like there being a Jewish nation in the middle east. And without getting into a stupid back-and-forth that can never be resolved, I personally believe that even if Israel had been peaceful from the start (unlikely since it was seeded by war but let's momentarily imagine...) it would have had war forced onto it sooner or later, because it's widely hated not only for its behaviour but for its essence.

Sadly this is used by Israelis to justify some extremely cruel and shit behaviour, but that doesnt stop it remaining true.
I believe that if the State of Israel ever elected a communist government, the USA would immediately impose sanctions and try to topple it.
 
im being paranoid but amongst the zionists there is a very strong publicly-stated desire for any gazan survivors to be shipped off to other countries and I worry that this 'port' will come to take on this role.

#

I do not think your being paranoid.


Biden is promising "no boots" on the ground.

First thing I thought when I heard about this is why is Biden doing this?

IMO its about US getting a toehold in Gaza. Its US initiative and will start to give US actual presence on the ground. Whatever Biden says about no boots on the ground.

I just do not believe this is purely about humanitarian aid.

For starters as other posters have pointed out it will take weeks to put in place.

This is about positioning US as broker on the ground for what happens to Gaza in future

When aid can come in lorries now immediately. But Biden will not put pressure on Israeli government to make this work.

Also no mention of UNWRA.

I'm really suspicious about this,
 
Last edited:
I believe that if the State of Israel ever elected a communist government, the USA would immediately impose sanctions and try to topple it.

Yes, if not actually send in boots on the ground to 'restore order'.

tbf though, they'd do that and have done anywhere they think they can get away with it.
 
Of course this is true.

However, there is a sizeable number of people in the world - and the region - who just don't like there being a Jewish nation in the middle east. And without getting into a stupid back-and-forth that can never be resolved, I personally believe that even if Israel had been peaceful from the start (unlikely since it was seeded by war but let's momentarily imagine...) it would have had war forced onto it sooner or later, because it's widely hated not only for its behaviour but for its essence.

Sadly this is used by Israelis to justify some extremely cruel and shit behaviour, but that doesnt stop it remaining true.

But it was "seeded" by the Nakba.

I've meet people from across the middle East. Secular / religious does not matter. The problem is for them that Palestinians had their land stolen from them.

What you are saying is that people from this region are inherently anti Semitic.

That is essentialist argument imo. And wrong.
 
There's an election coming up and many Muslim voters are angry at his stance on Gaza so far to the extent that they might not vote. Might have something to do with it.

Yes and a lot of the younger democrats are as well.

If I was in US Id still be thinking why does Biden not use US leverage more. That this is to little to late.
 
But it was "seeded" by the Nakba.

I've meet people from across the middle East. Secular / religious does not matter. The problem is for them that Palestinians had their land stolen from them.

What you are saying is that people from this region are inherently anti Semitic.

That is essentialist argument imo. And wrong.

WW2 and the Shoah, as well as Mandate Palestine and the Balfour declaration, all normally placed before the Nakba, temporally-speaking.

And I'm not saying that at all, I wrote 'a sizable number of people in the world and the region', which is true. You're responding as if that means everyone ('essentialist') and you're not stupid enough to be doing that accidentally. I wouldn't like to speculate on your motivation for deliberately attributing attitudes to me I don't have or express, but just stop it.
 
WW2 and the Shoah, as well as Mandate Palestine and the Balfour declaration, all normally placed before the Nakba, temporally-speaking.

And I'm not saying that at all, I wrote 'a sizable number of people in the world and the region', which is true. You're responding as if that means everyone ('essentialist') and you're not stupid enough to be doing that accidentally. I wouldn't like to speculate on your motivation for deliberately attributing attitudes to me I don't have or express, but just stop it.

Go on speculate
 
WW2 and the Shoah, as well as Mandate Palestine and the Balfour declaration, all normally placed before the Nakba, temporally-speaking.

And I'm not saying that at all, I wrote 'a sizable number of people in the world and the region', which is true. You're responding as if that means everyone ('essentialist') and you're not stupid enough to be doing that accidentally. I wouldn't like to speculate on your motivation for deliberately attributing attitudes to me I don't have or express, but just stop it.

Alright your saying a "sizeable" number of people in region are inherently anti Semitic. A big enough number to mean a war. Which to me means a least a majority.
 
Though it was not a simple as the Balfour declaration and a straight line to state of Israel.

The British Empire played both sides. Promising Arabs support if they aided British war effort in WW1 and later at start of WW2.

There were people like Balfour who supported Zionism. But that was not all of the British elite.

This historian says that British promised Arab leaders this part of Ottoman Empire and then reneged on it.

Its a historical debate.

From what I've read in British state circles like the Foreign office some had the neither Zionism nor Arab but for British Empire view.

When Zionists were lobbying Britain in early 1930s to support a population "transfer" for example they met with mixed reception.

I would say British Empire made a complete hash of its policy in middle East. Culminating in the debacle of Suez.

And in the video the historian says Britain should be honest about its impact on the middle East.

Of course later as Britain declined as an Empire US took over.

Interesting interview with the historian who says British misled Arab leaders.

I see nothing about Britain's involvement in the middle East as an Imperial power that it should be proud of.

 
Last edited:
Go on speculate

No thanks

Alright your saying a "sizeable" number of people in region are inherently anti Semitic. A big enough number to mean a war. Which to me means a least a majority.

So majorities start wars then? I thought perhaps an elite minority, eg some part of the ruling classes, with bad attitudes and power games to hand, lots of dog whistles and populist incitement.

It seems you're inventing all kinds of shit I never said. Why is that?
 

As an aside - and I don't think the Balfour declaration has turned out to be a good idea - it frightens me when normal inhibitions break down and art is vandalised.
Same goes for Just Stop Oil and any other movements embracing cultural vandalism.
 
No thanks



So majorities start wars then? I thought perhaps an elite minority, eg some part of the ruling classes, with bad attitudes and power games to hand, lots of dog whistles and populist incitement.

It seems you're inventing all kinds of shit I never said. Why is that?

Gone back to look at your original post and I'm not inventing "shit".
 
The "Bible as title deed" argument is more applicable to the West Bank than the coast of the area within the Green Line.
 
Though it was not a simple as the Balfour declaration and a straight line to state of Israel.

The British Empire played both sides. Promising Arabs support if they aided British war effort in WW1 and later at start of WW2.

There were people like Balfour who supported Zionism. But that was not all of the British elite.

This historian says that British promised Arab leaders this part of Ottoman Empire and then reneged on it.

Its a historical debate.

From what I've read in British state circles like the Foreign office some had the neither Zionism nor Arab but for British Empire view.

When Zionists were lobbying Britain in early 1930s to support a population "transfer" for example they met with mixed reception.

I would say British Empire made a complete hash of its policy in middle East. Culminating in the debacle of Suez.

And in the video the historian says Britain should be honest about its impact on the middle East.

Of course later as Britain declined as an Empire US took over.

Interesting interview with the historian who says British misled Arab leaders.

I see nothing about Britain's involvement in the middle East as an Imperial power that it should be proud of.


I think there are good grounds for saying that Zionism (that is to say the concept of the Restoration of Israel) was a British religious ideology which had some force as early as the 1830s. Sorry to repeat myself - but the point needs to be made.
"In 1841, a mission of inquiry sent by the Church of Scotland to Palestine issued a Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine, and called on them to take on the mantle of Cyrus and restore the people of Israel to their native land.[6] A member of the mission, a Scottish clergyman named Alexander Keith, was the first to speak of ‘a people without a country; even as their own land [. . .] is in a great measure a country without a people,’ a phrase which eventually came to be transformed into the specious slogan ‘a land without people for a people without a land’. So this slogan, notwithstanding its attribution to the Zionist movement, and sometimes to Israel Zangwill, himself a British Zionist and associate of Herzl, wasn’t Jewish in origin. "
 
An air drop of aid to the Gaza Strip killed five people on the ground, when the parachutes failed.

So, it is better to kill people by dropping aid on them then it is to impose sanctions on the State of Israel with a view of forcing it to allow in aid.

Latest: US denies aid drop killed people. That's all right then. Everything is normal, everything is fine. Of course the State of Israel should be allowed to block aid by land, and to be in Cyprus examining aid supplied by the EU, to be shipped to a temporary harbour.
 
I think there are good grounds for saying that Zionism (that is to say the concept of the Restoration of Israel) was a British religious ideology which had some force as early as the 1830s. Sorry to repeat myself - but the point needs to be made.
"In 1841, a mission of inquiry sent by the Church of Scotland to Palestine issued a Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine, and called on them to take on the mantle of Cyrus and restore the people of Israel to their native land.[6] A member of the mission, a Scottish clergyman named Alexander Keith, was the first to speak of ‘a people without a country; even as their own land [. . .] is in a great measure a country without a people,’ a phrase which eventually came to be transformed into the specious slogan ‘a land without people for a people without a land’. So this slogan, notwithstanding its attribution to the Zionist movement, and sometimes to Israel Zangwill, himself a British Zionist and associate of Herzl, wasn’t Jewish in origin. "

I've mentioned it a few times but I agree that Christian zionism is a very powerful force in how Israel is allowed to behave by eg the USA, and is what ultimately gives Israel its sense of and actual impunity. Jewish zionism might be driving the sharp end of the project, so to speak, but Christian zionist organizations make a huge contribution of both legitimacy and cash.
 
I've mentioned it a few times but I agree that Christian zionism is a very powerful force in how Israel is allowed to behave by eg the USA, and is what ultimately gives Israel its sense of and actual impunity. Jewish zionism might be driving the sharp end of the project, so to speak, but Christian zionist organizations make a huge contribution of both legitimacy and cash.
That is NOW.
The point I was trying to bring out was historically the Zionist movement as kick-started by the Balfour Declaration had Calvinist roots from 100 years earlier. Which led post World War II to a rapid colonisation - somewhat in the manner of the earlier French colonisation of Algeria.

Israel is almost a mirror image of Algeria, where French settlers with no claim to the land were kicked out after millions of indigenes were displaced or killed.
In Israel psychologically the Israelis have convinced themselves (and the Americans and British) that they are the "home team" and Palestine and Palestinians do not exist for them. "Arabs" they always say.
 
That is NOW.
The point I was trying to bring out was historically the Zionist movement as kick-started by the Balfour Declaration had Calvinist roots from 100 years earlier. Which led post World War II to a rapid colonisation - somewhat in the manner of the earlier French colonisation of Algeria.

Israel is almost a mirror image of Algeria, where French settlers with no claim to the land were kicked out after millions of indigenes were displaced or killed.
In Israel psychologically the Israelis have convinced themselves (and the Americans and British) that they are the "home team" and Palestine and Palestinians do not exist for them. "Arabs" they always say.

I think in the vast majority of 'the west', but also Russia and its sphere, Israel is considered the home team as you put it. I also think that's been true for a long time, and it's largely because of christianity be that cultural or actively religious.
 
Back
Top Bottom