Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[andysays]

I dont think I am antisemitic either..

I have no view other than "why is the world allowing 1.5 million people to be trapped and starved". If Palestine was doing this to Israel I would be equally appalled and upset and angry at the world if it was standing back allowing it to happen. But I doubt that the world would have taken nearly 5 months to intervene or get aid in.

Its not antisemitic to ask Why the UK US and indeed EU have taken so long to recognise that Gazans have a right to medicines food water and aid.

I genuinely do not understand why the UK and US have supported the actions of Israel.

Beat me up for asking about money ... I apologise for that.
If I have put 2 + 2 together and made 5 then mea culpa.

OK, I'm genuinely not trying to beat you up, and I share your concerns about what the Israeli state is doing in Gaza.

Thanks for your response and your apology.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So lets name which governments have been bought to such an extent that they are letting this happen?

None of them. They're supporting Israel because their alliance serves their strategic interests. This is really obvious too, the USA is a clear example - Biden has basically admitted as much more than once.

 

[Aladdin]

None of them. They're supporting Israel because their alliance serves their strategic interests. This is really obvious too, the USA is a clear example - Biden has basically admitted as much more than once.

Ok.. so is SA not a strategic ally to Israel?

Also...if they are allies then why are they allowing Netanyahu to cause the most damage to Israel? The world outside of the UK and US governments sees Israel NOW as a brutal regime hell bent on genocide and eliminating 1.5 million starving civilians in Gaza. The world now cannot but see Palestine as an occupied land suffering from extreme apartheid.
If the US and UK were true allies to the people of Israel then they would be shutting Netanyahu down because he is NOT actually helping the "strategic interests" as you say, of the US and UK. In fact the actions of Netanyahu's governement and the IDF under his orders is putting the UK and US in an extremely bad position.
So when will they ditch Netanyahu? How bad does this toxic alliance have to get before the UK and US dump Netanyahu?

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok.. so is SA not a strategic ally to Israel?

Also...if they are allies then why are they allowing Netanyahu to cause the most damage to Israel? The world outside of the UK and US governments sees Israel NOW as a brutal regime hell bent on genocide and eliminating 1.5 million starving civilians in Gaza. The world now cannot but see Palestine as an occupied land suffering from extreme apartheid.
If the US and UK were true allies to the people of Israel then they would be shutting Netanyahu down because he is NOT actually helping the "strategic interests" as you say, of the US and UK. In fact the actions of Netanyahu's governement and the IDF under his orders is putting the UK and US in an extremely bad position.
So when will they ditch Netanyahu? How bad does this toxic alliance have to get before the UK and US dump Netanyahu?

i don't think the zionists have good intentions toward the other 800,000 people in gaza either

 

[Aladdin]

i don't think the zionists have good intentions toward the other 800,000 people in gaza either

Ok.. fair point.
Terrifying

 

[krtek a houby]

Fascinating article from nearly 20 years ago about SA, Israel, similarities, differences, hypocrisy and all in all, a messy and tragic history.

Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria

During the second world war the future South African prime minister John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser. Three decades later he was being feted in Jerusalem. In the second part of his remarkable special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and...

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gramsci]

Fascinating article from nearly 20 years ago about SA, Israel, similarities, differences, hypocrisy and all in all, a messy and tragic history.

Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria

During the second world war the future South African prime minister John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser. Three decades later he was being feted in Jerusalem. In the second part of his remarkable special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and...

www.theguardian.com

Yes it is fascinating article. I've started on the first one.

First article covers a lot of what the Israeli architect Eyal Weisman says in Hollow Architecture.

Post 67 occupation of West Bank over years led to a form of discrimination against Palestinians that was done through urban planning rules and supposed legal methods.

This it could be argued that this was not comparable to SA Apartheid with its obviously racist separation.

However the cumulative effect of the planning rules/ residency permits is discrimination against Palestinians.

From the first part of the two articles I think this sums up the contradictions of Zionism. At once democratic and also discriminatory:

This, in fact, is the strength of municipal racism. It is neither brutal nor openly visible, preferring to take cover behind apparently neutral formulations. Thus it is always carefully concealed behind consensus-oriented wording, hidden beneath a thick layer of cosmetic liberal language," he says. "This is how a unique term which does not exist in the professional literature was born in our country: 'grey racism'. This is not a racism stemming from hatred of the 'other', but a 'lite racism' rooted in a Zionist ideology which strove to be democratic but, in giving priority to Jewish interests, inevitably deprived others of their rights. When there is no equality, there is bound to be discrimination, and when all those discriminated against are of the same nationality, there is no alternative but to call it what it is - 'national discrimination' - which belongs to the same family as the infamous racial discrimination."

This was about Jerusalem.

I've an interest in planning as been involved in opposing planning applications and taking part in consultations in my local area

I would say planning is political and not enough analysis of it's done in countries like UK as well.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes it is fascinating article. I've started on the first one.

First article covers a lot of what the Israeli architect Eyal Weisman says in Hollow Architecture.

Post 67 occupation of West Bank over years led to a form of discrimination against Palestinians that was done through urban planning rules and supposed legal methods.

This it could be argued that this was not comparable to SA Apartheid with its obviously racist separation.

However the cumulative effect of the planning rules/ residency permits is discrimination against Palestinians.

From the first part of the two articles I think this sums up the contradictions of Zionism. At once democratic and also discriminatory:


This was about Jerusalem.

I've an interest in planning as been involved in opposing planning applications and taking part in consultations in my local area

I would say planning is political and not enough analysis of it's done in countries like UK as well.

Just as an aside so many of the big road developments in nineteenth century London were undertaken to destroy slums, leaving their residents to move not to estates but wherever they could go - roads like charing x Road, kingsway and so on. Covered in Jerry White's book on C19 London. Yeh, planning is definitely political

 

[planetgeli]

"Determines the imperative"

I hope it translates well into Hebrew. I'm sure Israel will listen.

(It's the new US/UN resolution. The wording 'determines the imperative for a ceasefire'. Different to command/demand apparently. Meanwhile, here's Tareq with today's death toll.)

 

[Knotted]

Ok.. so is SA not a strategic ally to Israel?

Also...if they are allies then why are they allowing Netanyahu to cause the most damage to Israel? The world outside of the UK and US governments sees Israel NOW as a brutal regime hell bent on genocide and eliminating 1.5 million starving civilians in Gaza. The world now cannot but see Palestine as an occupied land suffering from extreme apartheid.
If the US and UK were true allies to the people of Israel then they would be shutting Netanyahu down because he is NOT actually helping the "strategic interests" as you say, of the US and UK. In fact the actions of Netanyahu's governement and the IDF under his orders is putting the UK and US in an extremely bad position.
So when will they ditch Netanyahu? How bad does this toxic alliance have to get before the UK and US dump Netanyahu?

I suspect most of the Arab regimes want Israel to succeed. Normalisation with Israel, financial backing from the US and cosy autocracy for the foreseeable, it doesn't matter if, say, a million Palestinians die as long as there isn't wider conflagration and a lid can be kept on the Arab public. And so America's web of regional alliances with especially big players like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking secure for the minute. And frankly Iran do not want to be militarily involved. Look at it that way and Israel and the US might not be doing themselves any long term harm. There's definite brinkmanship from the Israeli government in terms of what they can get away with and I think there are a few fissures opening up between the US and Israel.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Ok.. so is SA not a strategic ally to Israel?

Also...if they are allies then why are they allowing Netanyahu to cause the most damage to Israel? The world outside of the UK and US governments sees Israel NOW as a brutal regime hell bent on genocide and eliminating 1.5 million starving civilians in Gaza. The world now cannot but see Palestine as an occupied land suffering from extreme apartheid.
If the US and UK were true allies to the people of Israel then they would be shutting Netanyahu down because he is NOT actually helping the "strategic interests" as you say, of the US and UK. In fact the actions of Netanyahu's governement and the IDF under his orders is putting the UK and US in an extremely bad position.
So when will they ditch Netanyahu? How bad does this toxic alliance have to get before the UK and US dump Netanyahu?

Not in the same way, no. For the US Israel is military base in the middle east. Without it they would have to spend more on aircraft carriers and the like than they do on aid to Israel now.

I think the damage neyanyahu is doing to the reputation of Israel and by association its allies is the reason why you're starting to hear critical noises from the US and the EU.


It makes a lot more sense from this perspective than the one that says governments have been bought off by Soros and the Rothschilds or whatever.

 

[Pickman's model]

I suspect most of the Arab regimes want Israel to succeed. Normalisation with Israel, financial backing from the US and cosy autocracy for the foreseeable, it doesn't matter if, say, a million Palestinians die as long as there isn't wider conflagration and a lid can be kept on the Arab public. And so America's web of regional alliances with especially big players like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking secure for the minute. And frankly Iran do not want to be militarily involved. Look at it that way and Israel and the US might not be doing themselves any long term harm. There's definite brinkmanship from the Israeli government in terms of what they can get away with and I think there are a few fissures opening up between the US and Israel.

What is success? I mean, you don't define it - the destruction of hamas? Hamas won't be destroyed. Killing a million people bumps the zionists into the big boys club of genocide, providing the basis for decades if not centuries of hate. What if the Arab governments can't keep the lid on their restive populations? Sure over the next months or some years the zionist entity will continue to exist. Probably. But we now see the zionist entity as a fascist state, something they're unlikely to row back on. And fascist states haven't, in general, shown the greatest longevity. Yeh they're fine for now. But my prediction is they won't last as long as the kingdom of Jerusalem which gives them another 12 or so years. You don't kill a million people without damage to yourself, moral and mental. While the big boys protect them maybe they'll stumble on. But the winds of change are blowing in the world and we're now in as uncertain a situation as human civilisation has known since at least the 17th century. One thing that to me is certain is that the roll call of states will change markedly over the coming decades and one name that will be struck from the list is Israel

 

[agricola]

Not in the same way, no. For the US Israel is military base in the middle east. Without it they would have to spend more on aircraft carriers and the like than they do on aid to Israel now.

I think the damage neyanyahu is doing to the reputation of Israel and by association its allies is the reason why you're starting to hear critical noises from the US and the EU.


It makes a lot more sense from this perspective than the one that says governments have been bought off by Soros and the Rothschilds or whatever.

I really think this belief - which a lot of people at the top of Washington profess to believe - is as much a creation of the lobby as "Israel is our #1 ally" or "the sole democracy in the middle east" are, just designed for different people to consume.

If Israel didn't exist, the US relationship with individual Arab states (and the Middle-East generally) would probably have been positive for most of the years since 1945.

 

[Knotted]

What is success? I mean, you don't define it - the destruction of hamas? Hamas won't be destroyed. Killing a million people bumps the zionists into the big boys club of genocide, providing the basis for decades if not centuries of hate. What if the Arab governments can't keep the lid on their restive populations? Sure over the next months or some years the zionist entity will continue to exist. Probably. But we now see the zionist entity as a fascist state, something they're unlikely to row back on. And fascist states haven't, in general, shown the greatest longevity. Yeh they're fine for now. But my prediction is they won't last as long as the kingdom of Jerusalem which gives them another 12 or so years. You don't kill a million people without damage to yourself, moral and mental. While the big boys protect them maybe they'll stumble on. But the winds of change are blowing in the world and we're now in as uncertain a situation as human civilisation has known since at least the 17th century. One thing that to me is certain is that the roll call of states will change markedly over the coming decades and one name that will be struck from the list is Israel

I think they (the Americans and Israeli governments) are underestimating the consequences. I think it's conceivable that we might be heading for another 2011 style "Arab spring" with Israel as the trigger. And who knows what will happen wrt Lebanon/Hizbollah?

But there's calculations going on and I'm just guessing at them. Note that Israel is hated in the region anyway so they don't have so much to lose whereas the Americans do. As I pointed out earlier a full scale assault on Rafah seems to be a red line for the US, it just isn't happening despite what the Israeli government are saying. Mass famine killing 100's thousands may also be a red line, but that's a guess with very little basis.

What is success for Israel? Removal of the population in Gaza. I think that's pretty much what it looks like they're going for - ethnic cleansing/genocide. Doesn't matter if Hamas exist somewhere else in the world away from Israel's borders.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think they (the Americans and Israeli governments) are underestimating the consequences. I think it's conceivable that we might be heading for another 2011 style "Arab spring" with Israel as the trigger. And who knows what will happen wrt Lebanon/Hizbollah?

But there's calculations going on and I'm just guessing at them. Note that Israel is hated in the region anyway so they don't have so much to lose whereas the Americans do. As I pointed out earlier a full scale assault on Rafah seems to be a red line for the US, it just isn't happening despite what the Israeli government are saying. Mass famine killing 100's thousands may also be a red line, but that's a guess with very little basis.

What is success for Israel? Removal of the population in Gaza. I think that's pretty much what it looks like they're going for - ethnic cleansing/genocide. Doesn't matter if Hamas exist somewhere else in the world away from Israel's borders.

Have you heard of the fenians?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suspect most of the Arab regimes want Israel to succeed. Normalisation with Israel, financial backing from the US and cosy autocracy for the foreseeable, it doesn't matter if, say, a million Palestinians die as long as there isn't wider conflagration and a lid can be kept on the Arab public. And so America's web of regional alliances with especially big players like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking secure for the minute. And frankly Iran do not want to be militarily involved. Look at it that way and Israel and the US might not be doing themselves any long term harm. There's definite brinkmanship from the Israeli government in terms of what they can get away with and I think there are a few fissures opening up between the US and Israel.

I agree with Pickman's broadly on this. Normalisation of relations with Israel doesn't look like something that can happen any time soon. The depth of the anger about Israel's genocide is such that it isn't going to just fade away.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I really think this belief - which a lot of people at the top of Washington profess to believe - is as much a creation of the lobby as "Israel is our #1 ally" or "the sole democracy in the middle east" are, just designed for different people to consume.

If Israel didn't exist, the US relationship with individual Arab states (and the Middle-East generally) would probably have been positive for most of the years since 1945.

Yes I think I probably agree with that. But nonetheless it is the logic they're operating under, as opposed to "I must do this for the sheckels"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As I pointed out earlier a full scale assault on Rafah seems to be a red line for the US, it just isn't happening despite what the Israeli government are saying. Mass famine killing 100's thousands may also be a red line, but that's a guess with very little basis.

I think you're right about Rafah, and I also think we're in for some kind of a ceasefire soon. That the US is tabling a motion for one is significant. But we're already entering the famine stage of the genocide when the Israelis don't need to fire any more bullets to keep on killing. They just need to find spurious reasons to prevent sufficient aid from getting in. It may well be past the point where mass starvation and death from disease could be avoided even with Israeli cooperation.

As for expelling those Gazans who remain, I don't disagree that this appears to be the objective. But where do they go? What do they do when they get there? And what next for the people of the West Bank? I don't see that as a solution to anything for Israel.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think you're right about Rafah, and I also think we're in for some kind of a ceasefire soon. That the US is tabling a motion for one is significant. But we're already entering the famine stage of the genocide when the Israelis don't need to fire any more bullets to keep on killing. They just need to find spurious reasons to prevent sufficient aid from getting in. It may well be past the point where mass starvation and death from disease could be avoided even with Israeli cooperation.

As for expelling those Gazans who remain, I don't disagree that this appears to be the objective. But where do they go? What do they do when they get there? And what next for the people of the West Bank? I don't see that as a solution to anything for Israel.

Yeh sure they've been thinking today it's gaza and tomorrow it's us. If the zionists expel the gazans I think all bets are off as there's I think one thing that will unite Arab countries and that's a really fucking angry population. The Egyptians have already said moves to expel will void their peace with Israel. No Arab countries will seek reconciliation with the zionists. And any country which seeks to position itself as a defender of Islam, of Muslims, will need to step up or see that proud boast punctured. Countries like that will find themselves in something of a quandary.

 

[Gramsci]

Thing about all this is that ethnic cleansing has been happening in 48 and after 67.

The normalisation process with Arab states and the so called peace process was never about stopping the incremental ethnic cleansing of West Bank.

With whatever Palestinian population who remain living under a system of surveillance that is like living in an open prison.

Israel state thought that Palestinians would become forgotten internationally

As posts here have said there is a difference between Arab street and the corrupt governments of Arab states who were willing to accept a normalisation process.

The main guilty partners is the USA/ EU/ UK.

They turned a blind eye to the incremental ethnic cleansing and discrimination against Palestinians in the occupied territories over decades. All of which is documented. Including by Israelis and Israeli human rights groups.

No seizures of assets as has happened with the Ukraine/Russia conflict for example.

On countries being "bought" by Israel.

This is not how it works. The main leverage over Israel is that it needs support. From early days of Zionism the Balfour declaration. Then French support. Then USA. Israel needs for example USA military support.

If EU/ UK / USA withdrew support. Then Israel would have to change.

Which is why it's not pointless to attend demos or other actions.

Another point whilst the present government of Israel is on the right both left and right wings of Zionism in Israel have taken part in expulsion of Palestinians from their land

The main problem is the continued existence of Zionism.

 

[Knotted]

I agree with Pickman's broadly on this. Normalisation of relations with Israel doesn't look like something that can happen any time soon. The depth of the anger about Israel's genocide is such that it isn't going to just fade away.

I broadly agree with Pickman's model on this as well fwiw.

 

[Pickman's model]

I broadly agree with Pickman's model on this as well fwiw.

These are the end times indeed

 

[Gramsci]

US finalising F-35 sale to Israel as tensions over Gaza war plan boil

Congress was notified of the $2.5bn sale of F-35 Fighter Jets in 2008, but Israel may take possession of them as it readies a Rafah invasion

www.middleeasteye.net

Arms transfers are the US’s greatest source of leverage with Israel. The US provides its Middle East ally with $3.5bn a year in military aid. In addition, the White House has earmarked almost $15bn more for Israel that is stuck in Congress.

The F-35 deal that the US is moving to approve falls under the category of foreign military (FMS) sales, which means that Israel is using sovereign funds to purchase the Lockheed Martin-produced fighter jet. Congress was originally notified of the sale in 2008, meaning the administration is not obliged to make the deal public

Its simple really. Just stop sales and aid.

There are things about this conflict that aren't complicated.

Israel doesn't "buy" any country. It actually needs the aid of other countries like USA.

 

[two sheds]

If the aid is being provided in the form of arms isn't that just really a subsidy for the American arms companies?

 

[Gramsci]

If the aid is being provided in the form of arms isn't that just really a subsidy for the American arms companies?

Not the F 53s. Israel is buying them.

The issue is the US government have decided to subsidise US arms companies to make weapons for a country that practises Apartheid.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Whatever happened to the export credit guarantee that Mark Thomas was speaking about 20+ years ago?

 

[_Russ_]

I suspect most of the Arab regimes want Israel to succeed. Normalisation with Israel, financial backing from the US and cosy autocracy for the foreseeable, it doesn't matter if, say, a million Palestinians die as long as there isn't wider conflagration and a lid can be kept on the Arab public. And so America's web of regional alliances with especially big players like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking secure for the minute. And frankly Iran do not want to be militarily involved. Look at it that way and Israel and the US might not be doing themselves any long term harm. There's definite brinkmanship from the Israeli government in terms of what they can get away with and I think there are a few fissures opening up between the US and Israel.

Agree, the major middle East powers are not as sympathetic to the Palestinians as many would have.
I don't for one second think Blinken's visits are in good faith towards the Palestinians or that a deal that goes anywhere near a 2 state solution is the true intention.
Israel of course won't accept anything that leaves Palestine in Palestinian control
Or perhaps even to exist on future maps

 

[_Russ_]

How big a factor in all is the recent discovery of major gas reserves off the coast?. Israel is almost completely dependent on energy imports, that port the Americans say they will build for aid will come in handy to get things started

 

[Cid]

Yes, a rapidly constructed dock for aid is a totally feasible basis for a port that accepts oil tankers. These are two different things. Might it one day transpire that Gaza becomes the transit point for Israeli med oil? I have no idea. But it would be a fundamentally different project. Infrastructure isn't a slippery slope. You're not building a footbridge one day, then cunningly substituting it for a hydroelectric dam. The thing that a Gaza oil terminal is contingent on is not 'oh we built a floating pier here', it is a sustained occupation that somehow gets to a point where there's little disruption of a major infrastructure project.

 

[_Russ_]

Yes, a rapidly constructed dock for aid is a totally feasible basis for a port that accepts oil tankers. These are two different things. Might it one day transpire that Gaza becomes the transit point for Israeli med oil? I have no idea. But it would be a fundamentally different project. Infrastructure isn't a slippery slope. You're not building a footbridge one day, then cunningly substituting it for a hydroelectric dam. The thing that a Gaza oil terminal is contingent on is not 'oh we built a floating pier here', it is a sustained occupation that somehow gets to a point where there's little disruption of a major infrastructure project.

Its a start and obviously you need some facility to bring in the stuff to build something bigger, that's how it would work