Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[_Russ_]

On the contrary, one of the only ways this conflict ends is if Israeli public opinion tips into opposition. How they conceive their worldview is thus very important.

Yes of course, but that is not a counter to my point its a completely different point ....Mine was how the rest of the world deals with Israel...can you read?

 

[Pickman's model]

Comparing the ZE to crusader states is a bit off, seeing as (among its many err glories) the first crusade rounded up all the Jews in Jerusalem, locked them in a synagogue, and set it on fire.

For historical precedent I expect the siege of Masada will prove the most prescient event, if your sooner-than-2040 prediction becomes reality.

Like the zionist massacres at eg deir yassin give them the moral high ground. I'm not praising the kingdom of Jerusalem or the crusaders, I am drawing parallels between the factors that allowed them to exist for a season.

 

[teqniq]

This is pretty nail on the head from Aaron Bastani imo:

View attachment ssstwitter.com_1728127780800.mp4

source

 

[nino_savatte]

Comparing the ZE to crusader states is a bit off, seeing as (among its many err glories) the first crusade rounded up all the Jews in Jerusalem, locked them in a synagogue, and set it on fire.

For historical precedent I expect the siege of Masada will prove the most prescient event, if your sooner-than-2040 prediction becomes reality.

Erm, the Crusaders (who were Roman Catholic) also massacred Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem, and don't get me started on the Fourth Crusade.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

^ the bit in bold, it's as partisan as anything a partisan israeli historian would write.

But considering how you urged everyone to consider the context and background to what took place on October 7th 2023, I don't think you're giving enough consideration to the context and background of the creation of political zionism itself. Pogroms, mass jewish emigration from E.Europe to anywhere that would have them (mainly the USA), the rise of socialism and internationalism, as well as ideas of nationalism that still hold sway now and are all basically disastrous.

From a jewish historical perspective, it looks a bit like this.
Romans: "fuck off";
Muslims: "convert to Islam or fuck off";
Crusaders: "die";
Christans later: "die, or fuck off".

Again and again: "convert, die or fuck off"

Jews: "fuck this, let's fuck off"

Elsewhere: "not here! fuck off to America instead!"

America: "come on then, if you must"

Theodore Herzl (among others): "hang on, what if...."

Say what you like about the behaviour of modern Israel, it's a disgusting mess atm, but you seem to be treating political zionism itself as a kind of intractable enemy without, as far as I can tell, acknowledging where it came from.

And then to the Paelestinians: fuck off or we’ll kill you…scrub that: we’ll kill you anyway!

 

[PTK]

This is a diversion from this thread, but I wanted to address the claim that inscriptions written in Hebrew have been discovered in or on Ancient Egyptian pyramids.

This claim is in the headline of an article on the website of a Christian religious organisation. However, the article itself does not substantiate this claim.

It is reported that archaeologists have found that there are certain passages written in a hieroglyphic text that appear to be, not Egyptian, but Proto-Canaanite. The latter is a Semitic language from which Phoenician, Hebrew and other languages evolved.

The passages, which were inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at Saqqara, Egypt, are older than the pyramid, and were apparently supplied by priests in Byblos, which is in modern-day Lebanon, and which traded with the Ancient Egyptians.

This claim is irrelevant to present-day political concerns, and those invoking such claims are adopting a principle which, if applied universally (and principles, if correct, must be applied universally) would lead to endless conflict in the modern world. If descendants of all ancient ethnic groups were to claim the land on which their ancestors once lived and to engage in violence with the aim of securing that claim, then we would live in a nightmare. For we are all descended from people who came from somewhere else, with the possible exception of some people living in the Great Rift Valley in Africa.

 

[mojo pixy]

You've stated in the past on here that opposition to the idea of a Jewish state is antisemitic. You've as good as called a bunch of people on here antisemitic for their anti-Zionist views.

Opposition to the existence at all of any jewish state, wherever that might be, without implicit opposition to all states and / or the nation-state in general, is IMO a bit whiffy, yes. Opposition to the aggression and injustice and suffering and death brought about by the actions of this particular state, perfectly reasonable and to be encouraged IMO.

I've said the same thing in so many ways, that you want to keep taking it personally and responding defensively, is yours to own.

 

[mojo pixy]

Like the zionist massacres at eg deir yassin give them the moral high ground. I'm not praising the kingdom of Jerusalem or the crusaders, I am drawing parallels between the factors that allowed them to exist for a season.

I'm not on the lookout for moral high ground, IMO the ZE has none right now. Who we compare it to and how just tells about our prejudices and I'm fairly upfront about mine. And I do think if it ends by 2040 it'll look more like Masada than a crusade.

 

[mojo pixy]

And then to the Paelestinians: fuck off or we’ll kill you…scrub that: we’ll kill you anyway!

Then perhaps we should end with

Rest of the World to Zionists: "no, you can fuck off from there too"

 

[maomao]

Opposition to the existence at all of any jewish state, wherever that might be, without implicit opposition to all states and / or the nation-state in general, is IMO a bit whiffy, yes. Opposition to the aggression and injustice and suffering and death brought about by the actions of this particular state, perfectly reasonable and to be encouraged IMO.

Founding an ethno-religious state where none existed (not contesting the continuous presence of Jewish people in Palestine, just that they weren't previously a contiguous state) seems to present a unique set of problems that don't really apply to other states. I think it's fair to have a different set of questions for Israel than for other states.

 

[PTK]

This is pretty nail on the head from Aaron Bastani imo:

View attachment 445485

source

A correction:

The State of Israel did not break the Non-Proliferation Treaty in developing nuclear weapons, because it never signed it. Neither the Republic of India nor the Islamic Republic of Pakistan signed it either, and thus were not acting in violation of the said Treaty when they developed nuclear weapons

 

[tim]

History is prologue and gives an inkling of how things will turn out - and once again I'll point to the crusader states which lasted while the Muslims were disunited but fell when they were united. Muslim polities could and did ally with the kingdom of Jerusalem and principality of antioch, as eg Jordan has helped defend the zionist entity. But the crusader states as the ze does relied on outside support, on an influx of knights not simply during the various crusades but between times too. The Americans in this comparison stand in for French and German knights. The Iranians reckon that the ze will be gone by 2040. I think they'll be gone sooner than that as the ability of the zionists to endure depends largely on American weapons and so they are hostages to fortune. With the Americans sending weapons to Ukraine and Taiwan, with the Americans thus far reluctant to move to a wartime economy, the zionists are imo living on borrowed time as at some point the Americans will need their production largely for their own forces. And whether Taiwan kicks off next year as I believe or whether it's 2027, at some point the supply of American materiel will dry up. And I think that'll coincidr with a greater unity among the Arab states who'll recognise that their interests are best served by removing the turbulent zionists.

The Hashemite entity is more of a client than a defender of the Zionist entity. It is a state where a majority self-identify as Palestinians, but one which sought to oppress expressions of Palestinian identity when it controlled the West Bank. After the loss of Jerusalem and the West Bank, rather than supporting the PLO it forced them further into exile during the Jordanian Civil War (Black September) in 1970. Jordan would lose its raison d'etre should there be a Palestine free from the "River to the Sea" with a neighbouring entity on the East Bank with a Palestinian majority.The Hashemite family do not want to return to Hejaz, and they wouldn't be welcomed by their Saudi cousins. As to the idea that other Arab states are going to unite to and remove the Saint Thomasesque Zionists, I can't see that happening, none of the current entities would want revolution on their doorstep.

Lebanon is in chaos and has been to varying degrees since the seventies. It's more likely to return to civil war with the militias of the ethnoreligious political factions fighting for supremacy each with support from their outside backers from Israel, Syria, Turkey and other neighbours. Lebanon also has a substantial Palestinian refugee population who are kept subjected and confined to refugee camps. Central to Lebanese politics is maintaining the marginal position of these mostly Lebanese born Palestinians. If given full civil rights they would give the country a clear Sunni majority which could destroy the flimsy current constitutional settlement.

The Alawite entity is much weakened, but still holds sway despite the attempts of the majority of the Syrian people to bring it down. Assad may not like the Israelis but his own state is an even less stable mirror image, as it is also built on having a religious minority having absolute political dominace. As in Palestine most Syrians are Sunni, but those with power aren't.

The Al Saud entity, a state where the power is in the hands of an, albeit fractious, family business, also don't want to see a country where the population decide their own destiny on their doorstep. The Eastern region of Arabia is their own internal Palestine. It has the oil and gas that has made the country rich and it has an often impoverished Shia majority which has suffered decades of religious and cultural oppression brutally manifested by regular executions and, during the uprising of 1979, the levelling of the historic centre of the city of Qatif. These are people who have no love of or loyalty to the central government. In addition Mohammed bin Salman, the current tyrant wants Israeli as an ally against Iran, and Israeli as well as Egyptian and Jordanian collaboration support to realise his Neom fantasy.

Egypt is happy to collaborate with Israel in controlling the Southern Border of Gaza, which is hardly surprising given that Hamas an offshoot of and is still closely allied with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and the Egyptian military came to power after overthrowing the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood led government that followed the downfall of Mubarak. They went on to murder the former President and a lot of leading members of the brotherhood. Why would Sisi and his acolytes support a free and democratic Palestinian state where a branch of the Brotherhood would either share power or govern alone?

The Tehran theocracy faces substantial internal opposition and is more likely to be driven from power itself (although, I'm not holding my breath) than the Zionist entity is to be expunged. Should there be a second revolution in Iran, there's no reason to believe that a new regime would be as hostile to Israel as the current one claims to be. Iran is not an Arab state, but rather like Turkey and Israel one with a history of trying to keep their Arab minority populations oppressed.

In reality these states, with exception of Lebanon which is too fissured to unite internally let alone with other countries, can do business with a turbulent Zionist Entity, and they know that greater turbulence will lead to their own annihilation: they know what dominos can do.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not on the lookout for moral high ground, IMO the ZE has none right now. Who we compare it to and how just tells about our prejudices and I'm fairly upfront about mine. And I do think if it ends by 2040 it'll look more like Masada than a crusade.

i'm using an example of a state with largely the same footprint as the zionist entity. it's not a justification of the crusades, it's saying here's a previous state which has a religious identity different to those its neighbours and i think something similar will play out with this later state. it has nothing to do with prejudices from my pov, there's simply a rather limited number of examples of people founding states on that portion of territory.

 

[mojo pixy]

Founding an ethno-religious state where none existed (not contesting the continuous presence of Jewish people in Palestine, just that they weren't previously a contiguous state) seems to present a unique set of problems that don't really apply to other states. I think it's fair to have a different set of questions for Israel than for other states.

I suspect that wherever a jewish state had been put (given the various options discussed early on by zionists) sooner or later it would have presented a unique set of problems because there are just too many people who simply dislike the idea. Putting it in Palestine, in the heart of the islamic world and ancient christendom, is of course extremely provocative, but not completely unreasonable, given the well-known historical significance of that particular land in the mythology and identity of this particular long-dispersed culture.

What questions you mean, and how if at all they might differ from the set of questions we might ask of the USA or Pakistan or South Africa or Thailand or Saudi Arabia or New Zealand or Greenland or wherever, you could maybe expand on.

 

[Pickman's model]

The Hashemite entity is more of a client than a defender of the Zionist entity. It is a state where a majority self-identify as Palestinians, but one which sought to oppress expressions of Palestinian identity when it controlled the West Bank. After the loss of Jerusalem and the West Bank, rather than supporting the PLO it forced them further into exile during the Jordanian Civil War (Black September) in 1970. Jordan would lose its raison d'etre should there be a Palestine free from the "River to the Sea" with a neighbouring entity on the East Bank with a Palestinian majority.The Hashemite family do not want to return to Hejaz, and they wouldn't be welcomed by their Saudi cousins. As to the idea that other Arab states are going to unite to and remove the Saint Thomasesque Zionists, I can't see that happening, none of the current entities would want revolution on their doorstep.

Lebanon is in chaos and has been to varying degrees since the seventies. It's more likely to return to civil war with the militias of the ethnoreligious political factions fighting for supremacy each with support from their outside backers from Israel, Syria, Turkey and other neighbours. Lebanon also has a substantial Palestinian refugee population who are kept subjected and confined to refugee camps. Central to Lebanese politics is maintaining the marginal position of these mostly Lebanese born Palestinians. If given full civil rights they would give the country a clear Sunni majority which could destroy the flimsy current constitutional settlement.

The Alawite entity is much weakened, but still holds sway despite the attempts of the majority of the Syrian people to bring it down. Assad may not like the Israelis but his own state is an even less stable mirror image, as it is also built on having a religious minority having absolute political dominace. As in Palestine most Syrians are Sunni, but those with power aren't.

The Al Saud entity, a state where the power is in the hands of an, albeit fractious, family business, also don't want to see a country where the population decide their own destiny on their doorstep. The Eastern region of Arabia is their own internal Palestine. It has the oil and gas that has made the country rich and it has an often impoverished Shia majority which has suffered decades of religious and cultural oppression brutally manifested by regular executions and, during the uprising of 1979, the levelling of the historic centre of the city of Qatif. These are people who have no love of or loyalty to the central government. In addition Mohammed bin Salman, the current tyrant wants Israeli as an ally against Iran, and Israeli as well as Egyptian and Jordanian collaboration support to realise his Neom fantasy.

Egypt is happy to collaborate with Israel in controlling the Southern Border of Gaza, which is hardly surprising given that Hamas an offshoot of and is still closely allied with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and the Egyptian military came to power after overthrowing the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood led government that followed the downfall of Mubarak. They went on to murder the former President and a lot of leading members of the brotherhood. Why would Sisi and his acolytes support a free and democratic Palestinian state where a branch of the Brotherhood would either share power or govern alone?

The Tehran theocracy faces substantial internal opposition and is more likely to be driven from power itself (although, I'm not holding my breath) than the Zionist entity is to be expunged. Should there be a second revolution in Iran, there's no reason to believe that a new regime would be as hostile to Israel as the current one claims to be. Iran is not an Arab state, but rather like Turkey and Israel one with a history of trying to keep their Arab minority populations oppressed.

In reality these states, with exception of Lebanon which is too fissured to unite internally let alone with other countries, can do business with a turbulent Zionist Entity, and they know that greater turbulence will lead to their own annihilation: they know what dominos can do.

reading your post it's like daesh never existed, like there'd never been an arab spring, the way you blithely assume that what is will be. all states strut and fret their hour upon the stage - we've seen states rising and falling in europe over the past 35 years, e.g. yugoslavia, east germany, all the former parts of the soviet union, and the united kingdom itself is in its current form just over a century old. i don't for a moment suppose that the current incumbents in jordan and so forth are going to form a cabal to eject the zionists as things stand. but i don't suppose that things are as immutable as you're saying. in 2010 i don't suppose anyone would have predicted the years of strife in syria which erupted the following year.

i don't doubt that the trajectory the zionists are on at the moment will have its own repercussions across the region, not necessarily from zionist bombardment of e.g. amman but from popular forces within the various states. the fragility of regimes in places like iraq doesn't leave me disposed to feel that there isn't a great chance of change in the middle east. added to which any great moves away from oil will create volatility in countries which so greatly rely on the energy status quo.

how things will shift i don't pretend to know, but i do know that the choice for arab states, for arabs in general, is a vicious genocidal regime in tel aviv which will hit out at its neighbours with great force, or some regime which is more amendable to peaceful relations with its neighbours. the belligerent, racist, and expansionist government of netanyahu doesn't have any more pacific successor waiting in the sidelines. and the policies of arab countries that have sought closer relations with the zionists have really been screwed up and thrown away over the past year.

 

[mojo pixy]

i'm using an example of a state with largely the same footprint as the zionist entity. it's not a justification of the crusades, it's saying here's a previous state which has a religious identity different to those its neighbours and i think something similar will play out with this later state. it has nothing to do with prejudices from my pov, there's simply a rather limited number of examples of people founding states on that portion of territory.

By 'a bit off' I didn't mean it was an inaccurate comparison, I meant it was an unfortunate comparison.

My comparison with Masada will likewise, turn out to be very unfortunate if things go as you suggest wrt Iranian predictions.

 

[Pickman's model]

By 'a bit off' I didn't mean it was an inaccurate comparison, I meant it was an unfortunate comparison.

My comparison with Masada will likewise, turn out to be very unfortunate if things go as you suggest wrt Iranian predictions.

the entire situation's unfortunate as decisions made over the past century have led us to this most unappetising of circumstances

 

[tim]

reading your post it's like daesh never existed, like there'd never been an arab spring, the way you blithely assume that what is will be. all states strut and fret their hour upon the stage - we've seen states rising and falling in europe over the past 35 years, e.g. yugoslavia, east germany, all the former parts of the soviet union, and the united kingdom itself is in its current form just over a century old. i don't for a moment suppose that the current incumbents in jordan and so forth are going to form a cabal to eject the zionists as things stand. but i don't suppose that things are as immutable as you're saying. in 2010 i don't suppose anyone would have predicted the years of strife in syria which erupted the following year.

i don't doubt that the trajectory the zionists are on at the moment will have its own repercussions across the region, not necessarily from zionist bombardment of e.g. amman but from popular forces within the various states. the fragility of regimes in places like iraq doesn't leave me disposed to feel that there isn't a great chance of change in the middle east. added to which any great moves away from oil will create volatility in countries which so greatly rely on the energy status quo.

how things will shift i don't pretend to know, but i do know that the choice for arab states, for arabs in general, is a vicious genocidal regime in tel aviv which will hit out at its neighbours with great force, or some regime which is more amendable to peaceful relations with its neighbours. the belligerent, racist, and expansionist government of netanyahu doesn't have any more pacific successor waiting in the sidelines. and the policies of arab countries that have sought closer relations with the zionists have really been screwed up and thrown away over the past year.

Your initial post implied that the states as they currently exist will collaborate bring about change.

And I think that'll coincidr with a greater unity among the Arab states who'll recognise that their interests are best served by removing the turbulent zionists.

My point was that they wouldn't. They, like the Israeli regime are part of the status quo. They would also be destroyed by that change. The last major political changed that happened in the region was the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which nobody in either of the two major power blocks seemed to expect. However, incumbent regimes are not easy to dislodge even when many people are out on the street giving up their lives. Daesh failed; the Arab Spring failed; Assad is still living in his palaces and his regime controls the majority of the country and the main population centres and those who rose up against him are dead, refugees abroad or living in the marginal areas that the state doesn't control; and the Second Iranian Revolution is still to happen, despite the hatred on the streets and the occasional helicopter mishap Khamenei and the Mullahs still hold sway. Some revolutions succeed, at least initially, but most fail. Even the Crusader States managed to survive for two hundred years that would give the Israelis another 120.

On a side note, I would also say that Maronite dominated Lebanon which was carved out of their Syrian mandate by the French is closer to being a resurrected Crusader State than Israel. At least the Zionists managed to humiliate and drive out the British Imperialists.


,

 

[Pickman's model]

Your initial post implied that the states as they currently exist will collaborate bring about change.



My point was that they wouldn't. They, like the Israeli regime are part of the status quo. They would also be destroyed by that change. The last major political changed that happened in the region was the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which nobody in either of the two major power blocks seemed to expect. However, incumbent regimes are not easy to dislodge even when many people are out on the street giving up their lives. Daesh failed; the Arab Spring failed; Assad is still living in his palaces and his regime controls the majority of the country and the main population centres and those who rose up against him are dead, refugees abroad or living in the marginal areas that the state doesn't control; and the Second Iranian Revolution is still to happen, despite the hatred on the streets and the occasional helicopter mishap Khamenei and the Mullahs still hold sway. Some revolutions succeed, at least initially, but most fail. Even the Crusader States managed to survive for two hundred years that would give the Israelis another 120.

On a side note, I would also say that Maronite dominated Lebanon which was carved out of their Syrian mandate by the French is closer to being a resurrected Crusader State than Israel. At least the Zionists managed to humiliate and drive out the British Imperialists.


,

The kingdom of Jerusalem existed from 1099 to 1187, and my money's on the zionists going before a similar length of time. Their hattin likely to be bloodier tho

 

[maomao]

I suspect that wherever a jewish state had been put (given the various options discussed early on by zionists) sooner or later it would have presented a unique set of problems because there are just too many people who simply dislike the idea. Putting it in Palestine, in the heart of the islamic world and ancient christendom, is of course extremely provocative, but not completely unreasonable, given the well-known historical significance of that particular land in the mythology and identity of this particular long-dispersed culture.

What questions you mean, and how if at all they might differ from the set of questions we might ask of the USA or Pakistan or South Africa or Thailand or Saudi Arabia or New Zealand or Greenland or wherever, you could maybe expand on.

I suppose key factors that make it a unique set of problems would be that the Jews were established there in the first place and had had periods of conflict and periods of partial integration with the population they are fighting; that they have been supported throughout by international superpowers; the apartheid element and the ethno-religious bias of the state; the fact that the genocide has been ongoing and at points escalating for most of the past eighty years; the diaspora and Israel becoming the focus of a culture that had spread all over the world and the refusal to comply with international law. None of these are unique to Israel but the combination is unique. From your list Pakistan feels most similar. The USA and South Africa are the easiest to say 'that was just wrong' but have in both cases stepped down from their most extreme positions. Particularly in the current situation Israel seems like the biggest, most immediate and pressing problem from your list.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm still reading the article, I may respond further but I don't really fancy the hostility and name calling it might provoke; so, better to just not argue.

However, I will quote the very first paragraph:

It is said that Chaim Weizmann, who would later become the first president of the State of Israel, was once asked by a member of the House of Lords why Jews were so fixated on one tiny, contested piece of land. Were there not other territories in which a Jewish state could be established? Weizmann responded that this would be like asking why he had driven 20 miles to visit his mother, when there were many other perfectly nice old ladies living on his street.

If you don't understand that, don't sympathize with it at all, I suspect you can't understand how and why so many (not all but a lot of) jews feel about Eretz Israel despite everything. Even if they don't want to live there; to rinse Weizmann's analogy, you might never visit your mother and maybe even hate a lot of the things she's done, but you're kind of glad to know she's still alive.

I don't know how I'd feel if my mother was a mass-murderer, because she wasn't. But if she had been, i imagine very very conflicted could be an understatement.

Anyway, I'm going back to reading this article now. I've read every single link on this thread so far (i may have missed one or two on the fast news days tbh) . I hope I'm not alone in that.

Not read all the following posts.

Reading some and was reminded of post I did while back about Barnaby Raine interview.

Founding myths which are based on some facts I can see do have resonances that can go down the centuries.

Plus the centuries of experience of Jewish people of oppression and worse.

The Barnaby Raine take on this is that the experience of oppression of Jews can lead to Jewish people wanting to overthrow all forms of oppression. It's a basis for his communist politics that is not going against or rejecting his Jewishness. Its universalising Jewish experience.

So he reads the myths and later history of Jewish people in different way.

So the particular 19c form of Zionism and how it developed in 20c he rejects. And does so on basis of his own Jewish identity.

So its not a return to a particular land its a move to change the world.

Post in thread 'Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion' Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

I cannot find anything he's specifically written on this. He does go on about the religious side of exile etc but sorry a lot of religious stuff goes over my head. I think what he's doing is interpretation of Jewish experience/ history to support idea of liberation for all. Universalising it.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there is a way to reject Zionism without negating the Jewish experience.

Might be a minority view in Jewish community but given the increasing size of the Jewish bloc on demos recently might be one gaining some ground.

 

[agricola]

I'm not on the lookout for moral high ground, IMO the ZE has none right now. Who we compare it to and how just tells about our prejudices and I'm fairly upfront about mine. And I do think if it ends by 2040 it'll look more like Masada than a crusade.

Masada (and the earlier revolt) does share some parallels with now - the rise of quite frankly idiotic fundamentalism into power for one.

 

[mojo pixy]

I suppose what I'm saying is that there is a way to reject Zionism without negating the Jewish experience.

Might be a minority view in Jewish community but given the increasing size of the Jewish bloc on demos recently might be one gaining some ground.

I'd hope that the worse the state of Israel behaves, the more it gets isolated, till the people say enough's enough and have a spring of their own.

As we've been discussing though, there are larger powers at work in this situation than the will of the Israeli people. Plus, for a range of reasons, Israel suffers from something akin to a siege mentality at the best of times, and various populists and their media mouthpieces there have manipulated and exploited this repeatedly since 1948. And then again there's a widespread nobody likes us and we don't care attitude just under the surface whenever the UN or international opinion is mentioned.

It's a potent combination.

On the other point, sure zionism is just one point of view but if you reject it as in no way valid or reasonable then you do at least need to be aware of what it actually means and where it actually comes from, what you reject. Not just write as if by some magical whim in May 1948 a bunch of jewish racists for no particular reason moved to palestine just so they could kill arabs.

 

[teqniq]

France's Macron urges halt to arms exports destined for Israel's use in Gaza

 

[tim]

The kingdom of Jerusalem existed from 1099 to 1187, and my money's on the zionists going before a similar length of time. Their hattin likely to be bloodier tho

Acre fell in 1291.

 

[mojo pixy]

I suppose key factors that make it a unique set of problems would be that the Jews were established there in the first place and had had periods of conflict and periods of partial integration with the population they are fighting; that they have been supported throughout by international superpowers; the apartheid element and the ethno-religious bias of the state; the fact that the genocide has been ongoing and at points escalating for most of the past eighty years; the diaspora and Israel becoming the focus of a culture that had spread all over the world and the refusal to comply with international law. None of these are unique to Israel but the combination is unique. From your list Pakistan feels most similar. The USA and South Africa are the easiest to say 'that was just wrong' but have in both cases stepped down from their most extreme positions. Particularly in the current situation Israel seems like the biggest, most immediate and pressing problem from your list.

Oh no doubt, the situation in Israel/Palestine is imo the most urgent man-made (as opposed to natural) disaster of our time. Has been all my life, and especially now since the end of the Cold War, then a 'second intifada' from 2001 ever since, worsening not improving behaviour of the Israeli state and its emboldened far right (as well as a kind of exodus of critics as criticising from inside has become more difficult and unpleasant) culminating in where we are now.

I think if anything makes this situation truly unique, it's that while a lot of the concrete, economic support for Israel is either directly from or politically demanded by jews and jewish organizations in the US, it's also because of christian zionists, churches, and sympathetic christian politicians. This makes israel as it manifests right now, into essentially an american religious project.

That's the bit the ultra-religious populists in eg Iran really hate, I think.

 

[Gramsci]

On the other point, sure zionism is just one point of view but if you reject it as in no way valid or reasonable then you do at least need to be aware of what it actually means and where it actually comes from, what you reject. Not just write as if by some magical whim in May 1948 a bunch of jewish racists for no particular reason moved to palestine just so they could kill arabs.

I haven't actually said that.

What I have posted Is that in 1920s Zionist were looking at plans for population transfer. Using inducements of building villages in other parts of middle east to move Arabs to. British weren't interested. Zionist thought some kind of voluntary ( paying people to go ) or pressured population transfer could happen.

The trouble I have with Zionism now is that in 2024 its still at it I don't think Likud and Netanyahu are some kind of fringe group in Israel. IMO there is a continuity between 48 and now. Remember reading Benny Morris and his view was that in 48 they didn't finish the job and if they had in long term this conflict would not have dragged onto now

I do think there is a disjunct in thinking of some of those outside Israel. Chief Rabbi makes case for the long history of Zionism.

The practicality of making it work on the ground required some ethnic cleansing of Arabs. Either violently or by making their lives so difficult they left. It was of the you cant make an omelette without breaking eggs.

One reason why I found Chief Rabbi article annoying. He thinks this can all be done whilst being nice to Arabs.

The only argument that goes near justifying it was that back then loads of people were at it. Population transfers were not just Zionist thing.

Some of Netanyahu government members are.very right wing and might lose votes. But Liked is respectable mainstream party. People in Israel might think Netanyahu is corrupt. But the general policies of Likud which is mainstream party would not end if war in Gaza never happend or stopped tomorrow. Settlement building, gradual annexing of West Bank, not allowing Palestinians a genuine state and the so called Normalisation with Arab states. These are imo mainstream politics in Israel of Zionists.

If the Hamas attack had not happened all the above would still be happening. The international community in the West would make the occasional ticking off of Israel but containment of Palestinians and settlement building would continue

Seems to me a there are a lot of people like me who didn't know much about the Palestine / Israel conflict until this kicked off last year.

If I've any advice for someone who advocates a State for Jewish people then better PR might be in order. As its almost like they don't care whilst USA supports them. Support they need. And you can always be told your an anti Semite if you dont. Over last year my tolerance levels for that accusation has diminished.

And on the Chief Rabbi article as I said he goes on about the justification for a Jewish state but on the detail is silent. Reading it and comes across as romanticised view of what Israel stands for which is at variance with present day reality.

In particular is West Bank part of this Israel state? As definitely Netanyahu and others call it Judea and Samaria. The start of the occupation was under Labour Zionism and according to Ilan Pappe in his book about it they had no intention of leaving.