Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Bizarre piece on the BBC regarding Biden's supposed 'Israel-proposed peace deal' which appears not to have any support from the Israeli government
BBC said:
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted there will be no permanent ceasefire in Gaza until Hamas’s military and governing capabilities are destroyed and all hostages are released.
His statement comes after US President Joe Biden announced Israel had proposed a three-stage plan to Hamas aimed at reaching a permanent ceasefire.
The article offers no explanation for the contradiction between this being described as an Israeli proposal while the prime minister and members of the cabinet apparently reject it, and neither is there even any journalistic curiosity about it. Sometimes it feels like you're going mad reading this stuff.
 
Thanks. Interesting articles

The way Israel state/ IDF are building infrastructure and roads in Gaza as part of longer term control reminds me of reading of the Arab revolt and way British put it down in 1930s

In Jaffa they did some "Urban planning" and blew up sections of it. Supposedly to improve it ( see Pathe showreel) but really to subdue the Palestinian revolt which was making full use of the warren of old streets and alleys.

"Purging the area with dynamite" is how the newsreel puts it.

Road building infrastructure projects were a part of way British gained control of areas which were difficult to manage in the Arab revolt.

There is a lot I would say that the Zionists learnt from British in how to control populations who were hostile in colonial situations.



Showreel argues this was all done to benefit Palestine.


TBF road-building as a means of establishing control over an area is so ancient that they didn't have to learn it from the British, or indeed anyone. It is one of the few things that conquering states share in common across the world; even in pre-contact America it was being done by the Olmec and the Chavin peoples.
 
Bizarre piece on the BBC regarding Biden's supposed 'Israel-proposed peace deal' which appears not to have any support from the Israeli government

The article offers no explanation for the contradiction between this being described as an Israeli proposal while the prime minister and members of the cabinet apparently reject it, and neither is there even any journalistic curiosity about it. Sometimes it feels like you're going mad reading this stuff.

It is hard to explain an issue when you cannot include the actual explanation.

It is an Israel-proposed peace deal, it was negotiated by the Israeli representatives and was agreed by the Israeli War Cabinet; they just deny that it happened because it was inconvenient for them to do so and because all the previous times this has happened (including twice in 2023) they faced no pushback from their neighbours or allies for that whatsoever.
 
It is hard to explain an issue when you cannot include the actual explanation.

It is an Israel-proposed peace deal, it was negotiated by the Israeli representatives and was agreed by the Israeli War Cabinet; they just deny that it happened because it was inconvenient for them to do so and because all the previous times this has happened (including twice in 2023) they faced no pushback from their neighbours or allies for that whatsoever.
Why could the BBC not say if it was agreed by the cabinet? Or include some analysis to that effect.
 
Why could the BBC not say if it was agreed by the cabinet? Or include some analysis to that effect.

Because the logical follow on question from that is why would the Israeli government ignore its own decision; once you ask that then you ask "have they done this before?" and pretty soon you are at the point where you say that this Israeli government is shameless, bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the current horror and is extremely unlikely to do anything positive at all going forward.
 
Is this guy talking sense? He was preaching against supporting Ukraine two years back.
On Israel he now says Israel has been an apartheid state since their ethnic cleansings of 1948 and 1967.
Interesting he is not persona non grata in the USA or Australia.
Can't imagine any political party in UK voicing his analysis
 
Meanwhile every single news channel is covered with this weird D-Day shit. Cool, give it an hour or so, but wall to wall? Respect to Biden and Tom Hanks in the front row for lasting this long.There's real life war happening, can we please report on that?
 
Meanwhile every single news channel is covered with this weird D-Day shit. Cool, give it an hour or so, but wall to wall? Respect to Biden and Tom Hanks in the front row for lasting this long.There's real life war happening, can we please report on that?
Earlier today those brainless twats at the BBC put it on both BBC1 and 2 both showing exactly the same thing!
 
Earlier today those brainless twats at the BBC put it on both BBC1 and 2 both showing exactly the same thing!

I tuned in a little earlier only to see a very awkward moment with the German Chancellor arriving to parade past all the old boys. I bet he'll need a stiff drink tonight.
 
I wonder who this might be? Unfortunately though I do not have lots of faith in the Met actually doing something with the evidence that has been presented to them, save for conveniently ignoring it.

Eylon Levy? Please let it be Eylon Levy.
 
The Telegraph tweeted it's front page today, which says the Labour manifesto contains a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state.
Is this for sure - or the DT provoking the usual reaction from JC and its followers? (all no doubt obscured by Rishi D Day horror)
GPa4kpsXQAAA-Ox.jpeg
 

Much better news than finding another couple dead.

What would be amazing would be if any of the former hostages will speak out against Israel's response - I think regardless of what I'd been through I'd be pretty fucking horrified to find out what had been done in the name of 'returning' me. Obviously, I won't hold it incumbent upon any of them to do that after what they've been through, but when/if we do hear about that it will be illuminating.
 
The Telegraph tweeted it's front page today, which says the Labour manifesto contains a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state.
Is this for sure - or the DT provoking the usual reaction from JC and its followers? (all no doubt obscured by Rishi D Day horror)
View attachment 427884

Depends on what he means. I haven't seen clarification on this.

Whether it's immediate recognition like Spain and Ireland have done.

Or recognition at some point as part of negotiations for a new peace process.

So agreement in principle but kicked into long grass. As usual with the so called peace process.

Also depends on what Starmer thinks a two state solution is.

Pre 67 borders.

Or some "demilitarised" Palestinian not quite a state. Where Palestinians have some kind of self government and place at UN but Israel have last say on " security"
 
Colombia is suspending coal exports to Israel until the country pulls its troops out of Gaza

Israel imports more than 50% of its coal from Colombia, according to the American Journal for Transportation, and uses much of it to feed its power plants.

 
Depends on what he means. I haven't seen clarification on this.

Whether it's immediate recognition like Spain and Ireland have done.

Or recognition at some point as part of negotiations for a new peace process.

So agreement in principle but kicked into long grass. As usual with the so called peace process.

Also depends on what Starmer thinks a two state solution is.

Pre 67 borders.

Or some "demilitarised" Palestinian not quite a state. Where Palestinians have some kind of self government and place at UN but Israel have last say on " security"

It certainly sounds very much as if it is of the long grass kind, one that is still conditional on Israeli approval (and that a two state solution can be achieved).

Personally I think it is a bit of a rabbit hole to go down anyway given the lack of clarity as to what peace talks would even end up agreeing (if they happened) in terms of a one or two state solution, they'd be better off recognizing that the Palestinian mission to the UK is the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people to the UK, and therefore upgrading it to an Embassy (and Zomlot to an ambassador).

I'd also offer membership in the Commonwealth to all the Palestinian people based on the area ruled during the Mandatory period - so those from Gaza, the West Bank, the camps in Lebanon and Jordan and within Israel itself as well. Obviously they'd have many good reasons to reject it, but I think the offer should be made openly and in the right spirit (edit) and would be long overdue recognition that we in the UK owe it to these people to at least recognize that this place existed under British rule, and that they have a right to live there as they did when the UK ran it.
 


Watched this long interview with head of the Palestine National Initiative Mustafa Barghouti

Set up as alternative to Hamas and Fatah. Its secular group.

He calls for a One State Solution

Interesting as his life has covered lot of history of Palestine / Israel. Grew up on West Bank and was 13 when Israel occupied West Bank. His whole life changed with living under Israeli military rule. Got a scholarship to study medicine in USSR. Spent seven years in USSR. Which he liked. USSR took in a lot of students from other countries. He had to stay as if he went back to visit the petty nature of Israel military rule would have likely meant being stopped to return to USSR to finish studies.

On return he found that Israel had been not funding health services. As occupying power it was responsible. The gap between funding Israelis health and those of the West Bank was very big.

He decided to set up small teams of people to be trained to go out and treat people in West Bank. When the first Intifada started his medical teams worked to support those injured by IDF

His view of the first Intifada was positive. It was genuinely grass roots community organised revolt against occupation. And made occupation so difficult for Israel it was forced to have peace talks.

The main Palestinian leadership had been in exile during Intifada and a new generation of leaders came up.

He took part in talks as a representative of the grass roots. A sticking point was agreement to end settlement building.

What he and other grass roots people realised was that the Israelis had opened back channel talks with the exiled leadership to overcome this,

He opposed the agreement reached and told Arafat so. Said it was a trap.

He and others like Edward Said were correct on this.

PNI was set up as secular alternative to Hamas and alternative to the now corrupt Fatah.

He tries to get a united leadership of all the factions. Looks like he is seen as an honest broker by both sides.

On present day he says its up to Palestinians who they want to represent them. That would include Hamas.

PNI does not have an armed wing and works non violently. He does not oppose resistance to Israel.

On Gaza. This is worse than Nakba. Israel wants to clear Gaza of Palestinians.

So he is anti Zionist but not against existing Jewish Israeli population living in a future Palestine.

He came across as thinking the Two State solution died. The Oslo talks ended up as a trap for Palestinian movement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom