Israel-Gaza Conflict

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Moggy » Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:39 pm

Hexx wrote:It’s just numb now.

Daily atrocities and war crimes.
Israeli ministers saying the quiet part as loud as possible in any communications. They don’t even hide their ethnic cleaning ambitions.
The support from western government never waivers.

The last few months will forever be a stain on humanity


How dare you say that on the start of the Season for Nonviolence.

User avatar
Met
Member
Joined in 2015

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Met » Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:46 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

Britain is ready to bring forward the moment when it formally recognises a Palestinian state, the foreign secretary has suggested.

Lord Cameron said Palestinians had to be given a political horizon to encourage peace in the Middle East.

He is beginning his fourth visit to the region since being appointed foreign secretary in November.

The UK has a responsibility to set out what a Palestinian state would look like, he told a Westminster reception.

The Palestinian people would have to be shown "irreversible progress" towards a two-state solution, Lord Cameron said.

"As that happens, we - with allies - will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations," he told the Conservative Middle East Council.


I'll believe it as more than hot air when it happens, but still a pretty significant step to potentially bring it forward from a full 2 state agreement between the two happening first.

User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Cuttooth » Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:38 pm

twitter.com/alexcrawfordsky/status/1756997139245252736



Over fifty people killed in Israeli strikes in Rafah, the sole remaining place in Gaza the Israeli military says is "safe" for Palestinians, as they rescued two hostages.

This seems to be the stage where various politicians who backed Israel unequivocally in October and November and refused to call for a ceasefire are suddenly trying to walk back their positions. As Nesrine Malik points out below this is quite shameful and underpins politics that don’t bode well for the future.

Something odd is happening. A sort of glitch or malfunction. Liberal politicians who refuse to call for a ceasefire in Gaza or halt support for Israel’s assault are no longer making sense, and increasingly seem as though they are going through a crisis. Garbled language and contradictory statements are becoming common among establishment figures. When Keir Starmer was asked if cutting off water and supplies are actions that fall within international law, he said on live radio that Israel “does have that right”. Then, his party claimed he never said this at all. When Starmer said that Labour would not recognise Palestine unilaterally, his own shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, told the Financial Times that Labour would consider it.

Nowhere are these contradictions clearer than when politicians express unequivocal support for Israel’s actions while also expressing concern for civilians in Gaza. In a post on X, Lisa Nandy, the shadow international development secretary, appeared to support the suspension of funds to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, because “allegations this serious demand a serious response”, while also “seeking reassurances” from the prime minister that aid could still be provided. I had to read her statement several times to try to understand what she was getting at. Meanwhile, David Cameron said he was “worried” that Israel may have broken international law, but that this did not change the UK’s stance on exporting weapons to Israel. Riddle me that.

You might call this tendency Schrödinger’s policy. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said that 7 October could not be taken as licence to “dehumanise” others, but his government chose twice to invoke the right to bypass Congress and provide more weapons to Israel.

This dissonance is a product of attempting to reconcile an irreconcilable position. The facts are simply too stark for anyone to confront them while plausibly continuing to support Israel’s actions in Gaza. So politicians instead resort to contradictory and sometimes wild explanations to avoid calling out these actions or demanding that anything should be done about them. The results border on derangement, such as when Nancy Pelosi told CNN that while some protesters are “spontaneous and organic and sincere”, calling for a ceasefire means giving voice to “Mr Putin’s message”. And if that wasn’t enough, last year, she told pro-Palestine protesters to go back to China, as that’s where “their headquarters is”.

Spokespeople are on the ropes. When asked what message Joe Biden had for Arab Americans who are concerned about Gaza, a White House spokesperson said the president was “heartbroken” and also believed “Israel has the right to defend themselves”. Heartbroken Biden appears to have given up altogether, cracking under the effort of pretending his country’s Middle East policy is fruitful or even coherent. He has admitted that strikes against the Houthis aren’t working. “Are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Yes,” he told journalists.

It’s an honest summary at least, and it encompasses the position that Israel’s allies have shown towards Gaza. Is it working? No. But it will continue. And that’s that. Because the war passes no tests. It’s not consistent with liberal principles, and it’s not even logical in terms of security. The Middle East is the most unstable it has been in decades, and the conflict is making political life increasingly volatile at home, particularly in the US and the UK. Two parties of centrist “grownups” have positioned themselves as alternatives to chaotic and corrupt rightwing competitors in a crucial election year, and are now worried about losing support, and regularly have to fend off the heckles from pro-Palestine protesters.

This strange inability to respond appropriately to Israeli aggression is about more than Gaza. Events there have exposed the flaws in an entire model of politics and the assumptions that underpin it. If liberalism cannot offer a moral and stabilising form of governance, then what is it for? In the midst of such a historically bloody and disruptive conflict, if liberalism shows no ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security and its own electoral prospects, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.

When a less safe world becomes an acceptable price to pay for loyalty to allies, the west’s claim to authority as a political and military custodian of law and order looks increasingly tenuous.

Once that authority is gone, the system is rocked from within. The mainstream political consensus on Israel and Palestine long held that Israel’s actions ought to be staunchly supported, and that the plight of Palestinians is either paralysingly complex or – at worst – the fault of their own terrorists. That consensus is now being challenged, not only by faceless protesters, but from within the bastions of liberal media. In recent weeks, both CNN and the New York Times have been reportedly riven with internal discord after some employees deemed their coverage too credulous and sympathetic to Israel’s actions.

Gaza has become the expression of a legitimacy crisis for an Anglo-American political class who preside over already fragile systems that deliver less and less to their populations, and whose main offering is that the alternative is worse. Things may look stable, but underneath lurk managed discontents about costs of living, diminished social mobility and the ravages wreaked by rightwing governments to which centrists provide no real answer.

As the writer Richard Seymour once said: “If a crisis erupts in politics we can be sure that it’s overdetermined by the accumulation of contradictions elsewhere in the structure. Individual crises might be manageable, but what’s deadly is the way in which all of these contradictions feed back on each other.”

The political response to Gaza may seem obstinate and imperious, yet what lies behind it is not strength, but weakness.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rmer-biden

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Hexx » Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:21 pm

The story of Hind Rajab and the murder of the Red Cross workers trying to help her broke me over the weekend

User avatar
speedboatchase
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by speedboatchase » Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:10 pm

There is no 'safe' area in Gaza if Hamas is holding hostages among civilians there. Will be curious to see from the captives testimonies in the next few days if they were moved to Rafah or stayed put since Oct 7. Netanyahu is now saying that the IDF plans to evacuate those in Rafah but wherever they go, the hostages will go too and so will the bombings and devastation.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Alvin Flummux » Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:35 am

US serviceman self immolates outside the Israeli embassy in DC, in protest at the ongoing genocide, and the US's brazen support of it.

twitter.com/caitoz/status/1761879830495482131



This is the second self immolation the US has seen. The first was outside of the Israeli consulate in Atlanta.

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Knoyleo » Mon Feb 26, 2024 7:31 am

Alvin Flummux wrote:US serviceman self immolates outside the Israeli embassy in DC, in protest at the ongoing genocide, and the US's brazen support of it.

twitter.com/caitoz/status/1761879830495482131



This is the second self immolation the US has seen. The first was outside of the Israeli consulate in Atlanta.

No it isn't, a climate protestor set themselves on fire in DC in 2022, and a man in Brooklyn also set himself alight after emailing various news outlets about the climate crisis in 2018.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-im ... Wynn_Bruce

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buckel

Still amazed there seem to have been none (recorded) in the US prior to 2018.

pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
RetroCora
Member
Joined in 2022

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by RetroCora » Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:36 am

Knoyleo wrote:
Alvin Flummux wrote:US serviceman self immolates outside the Israeli embassy in DC, in protest at the ongoing genocide, and the US's brazen support of it.

twitter.com/caitoz/status/1761879830495482131



This is the second self immolation the US has seen. The first was outside of the Israeli consulate in Atlanta.

No it isn't, a climate protestor set themselves on fire in DC in 2022, and a man in Brooklyn also set himself alight after emailing various news outlets about the climate crisis in 2018.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-im ... Wynn_Bruce

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buckel

Still amazed there seem to have been none (recorded) in the US prior to 2018.


Hate to tell you this but there are at least three during Vietnam. Probably the most famous is Norman Morrison.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

Roger Allen Laporte set himself alight outside the UN a week later, and a third woman whose name I can’t remember set herself alight in her home in the Midwest (Michigan or Illinois kind of way) as well, though there’s debate as to whether she did it in protest, due to depression or by accident.

User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Cuttooth » Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:39 am

I think Alvin just means in relation to the Israel-Palestine war.

User avatar
RetroCora
Member
Joined in 2022

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by RetroCora » Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:43 am

Cuttooth wrote:I think Alvin just means in relation to the Israel-Palestine war.


I thought Alvin did but wasn’t sure if Knoyleo was as well when he mentioned climate protestors - I also wouldn’t have thought anyone would be setting themselves alight over Palestine before 2018.

Celene Jankowski was the name I was looking for before, as well. And two more women - Alice Herz (who appears to be the first American in 1965) and Florence Beaumont, among a few more.

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Knoyleo » Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:03 am

Cuttooth wrote:I think Alvin just means in relation to the Israel-Palestine war.

Yeah, he clearly does, not sure why I read it any other way earlier.

RetroCora wrote:Hate to tell you this but there are at least three during Vietnam. Probably the most famous is Norman Morrison.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

Roger Allen Laporte set himself alight outside the UN a week later, and a third woman whose name I can’t remember set herself alight in her home in the Midwest (Michigan or Illinois kind of way) as well, though there’s debate as to whether she did it in protest, due to depression or by accident.

This is what I get for relying on Wikipedia's history of self immolation. :x

pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
RetroCora
Member
Joined in 2022

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by RetroCora » Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:13 am

Knoyleo wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:I think Alvin just means in relation to the Israel-Palestine war.

Yeah, he clearly does, not sure why I read it any other way earlier.

RetroCora wrote:Hate to tell you this but there are at least three during Vietnam. Probably the most famous is Norman Morrison.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

Roger Allen Laporte set himself alight outside the UN a week later, and a third woman whose name I can’t remember set herself alight in her home in the Midwest (Michigan or Illinois kind of way) as well, though there’s debate as to whether she did it in protest, due to depression or by accident.

This is what I get for relying on Wikipedia's history of self immolation. :x


Wiki's a pain in the arse for conflicting articles. There's also a Wiki list of people who have set themselves on fire with nationalities, and this fella is the 25th recorded political self-immolation in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations

There's some work to be done on identifying the importance of self-immolation as a tool for radical politics in America, but that's for another conversation...

User avatar
Carlos
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: SanCarlos

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Carlos » Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:45 pm

Riddle me this: is the current debate over whether to have a debate about the Gaza war not just a platitude?

Israeli forces are just as cowardly for bombing civilians just as much as Hamas is for hiding behind them. The entire war is a massive tragedy and should never have happened.

But is a company with as diminished world standing as Britain calling for a ceasefire actually going to do anything? Or do we still hold power over Israel for the amount of arms we sell them on an annual basis?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Moggy » Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:02 pm

Carlos wrote:Riddle me this: is the current debate over whether to have a debate about the Gaza war not just a platitude?

Israeli forces are just as cowardly for bombing civilians just as much as Hamas is for hiding behind them. The entire war is a massive tragedy and should never have happened.

But is a company with as diminished world standing as Britain calling for a ceasefire actually going to do anything? Or do we still hold power over Israel for the amount of arms we sell them on an annual basis?


Ultimately it's just British politics beating itself up for no reason. Neither Israel or Hamas give a gooseberry fool about Britain these days. I don't know how many weapons we sell to Israel, but I can't see the Tories or Labour ever banning weapons sales to Israel.

The only reason for British politicians to do this is to either try and strawberry float over their political rivals, score points with the voters they want to attract or because they have genuine moral feelings over the conflict. But it'll make no difference to what goes on in Israel and Palestine.

User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Cuttooth » Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:43 pm

You wouldn’t think the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council would you.

The Israeli government benefits from the collective diplomatic and practical support of its international allies, obviously primarily the United States. If the UK government believes they cannot support some of the actions of the Israeli government then there are practical things it could do, from supporting votes in the UNSC calling for a bilateral ceasefire rather than abstaining, or pausing sales of arms to Israel (something that is supposedly being considered), to various kinds of sanctions that the international community already sets out on some nations.

There’s this ongoing claim following last week’s clusterfuck in the Commons that any political effort within the UK to determine the country’s foreign policy is a complete waste of time, which is a ridiculous position before you even get to the unique historical connection to this conflict the UK has. Why do we even have foreign policy or a Foreign Secretary if none of it apparently matters? Better yet, why wouldn’t you just take an explicitly isolationist political position in light of that?

Any country could have raised a case of genocide to the International Court of Justice. As much as the UK’s position in the world has been diminished, it would be daft to suggest it has a significantly lower international standing than South Africa.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Rocsteady » Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:49 pm

Britain is still one of the most powerful/influential countries in the world. We could put considerable international pressure on Israel if we were willing.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Moggy » Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:51 pm

Cuttooth wrote:You wouldn’t think the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council would you.

The Israeli government benefits from the collective diplomatic and practical support of its international allies, obviously primarily the United States. If the UK government believes they cannot support some of the actions of the Israeli government then there are practical things it could do, from supporting votes in the UNSC calling for a bilateral ceasefire rather than abstaining, or pausing sales of arms to Israel (something that is supposedly being considered), to various kinds of sanctions that the international community already sets out on some nations.

There’s this ongoing claim following last week’s clusterfuck in the Commons that any political effort within the UK to determine the country’s foreign policy is a complete waste of time, which is a ridiculous position before you even get to the unique historical connection to this conflict the UK has. Why do we even have foreign policy or a Foreign Secretary if none of it apparently matters? Better yet, why wouldn’t you just take an explicitly isolationist political position in light of that?

Any country could have raised a case of genocide to the International Court of Justice. As much as the UK’s position in the world has been diminished, it would be daft to suggest it has a significantly lower international standing than South Africa.


Do you actually think the Tories or Labour would do any of that?

Do you think Israel would stop or pause their military actions if the UK government was loudly calling for it?

It's not that the UK is utterly powerless, but it's also very easy to completely ignore us.

The US, UK and EU combined have imposed sanctions on Russia and its made no difference to Russian foreign policy, it's unlikely the UK alone would make any difference to Israeli policies.

User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Cuttooth » Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:18 pm

Moggy wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:You wouldn’t think the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council would you.

The Israeli government benefits from the collective diplomatic and practical support of its international allies, obviously primarily the United States. If the UK government believes they cannot support some of the actions of the Israeli government then there are practical things it could do, from supporting votes in the UNSC calling for a bilateral ceasefire rather than abstaining, or pausing sales of arms to Israel (something that is supposedly being considered), to various kinds of sanctions that the international community already sets out on some nations.

There’s this ongoing claim following last week’s clusterfuck in the Commons that any political effort within the UK to determine the country’s foreign policy is a complete waste of time, which is a ridiculous position before you even get to the unique historical connection to this conflict the UK has. Why do we even have foreign policy or a Foreign Secretary if none of it apparently matters? Better yet, why wouldn’t you just take an explicitly isolationist political position in light of that?

Any country could have raised a case of genocide to the International Court of Justice. As much as the UK’s position in the world has been diminished, it would be daft to suggest it has a significantly lower international standing than South Africa.


Do you actually think the Tories or Labour would do any of that?

Do you think Israel would stop or pause their military actions if the UK government was loudly calling for it?

It's not that the UK is utterly powerless, but it's also very easy to completely ignore us.

The US, UK and EU combined have imposed sanctions on Russia and its made no difference to Russian foreign policy, it's unlikely the UK alone would make any difference to Israeli policies.


The point is that the UK is part of an international community that can both collectively and individually put pressure on the Israeli and American governments if they wanted to. Israel can of course choose to ignore all that but not without some consequence, if its allies so wished. Whether the Tories or Labour decide to not engage with that is a different argument to whether it would matter.

Ultimately if it has made no difference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine do you think the UK should open trade back up with Moscow? The obvious, moral answer is clearly no.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Moggy » Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:30 pm

Cuttooth wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:You wouldn’t think the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council would you.

The Israeli government benefits from the collective diplomatic and practical support of its international allies, obviously primarily the United States. If the UK government believes they cannot support some of the actions of the Israeli government then there are practical things it could do, from supporting votes in the UNSC calling for a bilateral ceasefire rather than abstaining, or pausing sales of arms to Israel (something that is supposedly being considered), to various kinds of sanctions that the international community already sets out on some nations.

There’s this ongoing claim following last week’s clusterfuck in the Commons that any political effort within the UK to determine the country’s foreign policy is a complete waste of time, which is a ridiculous position before you even get to the unique historical connection to this conflict the UK has. Why do we even have foreign policy or a Foreign Secretary if none of it apparently matters? Better yet, why wouldn’t you just take an explicitly isolationist political position in light of that?

Any country could have raised a case of genocide to the International Court of Justice. As much as the UK’s position in the world has been diminished, it would be daft to suggest it has a significantly lower international standing than South Africa.


Do you actually think the Tories or Labour would do any of that?

Do you think Israel would stop or pause their military actions if the UK government was loudly calling for it?

It's not that the UK is utterly powerless, but it's also very easy to completely ignore us.

The US, UK and EU combined have imposed sanctions on Russia and its made no difference to Russian foreign policy, it's unlikely the UK alone would make any difference to Israeli policies.


The point is that the UK is part of an international community that can both collectively and individually put pressure on the Israeli and American governments if they wanted to. Israel can of course choose to ignore all that but not without some consequence, if its allies so wished. Whether the Tories or Labour decide to not engage with that is a different argument to whether it would matter.

Ultimately if it has made no difference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine do you think the UK should open trade back up with Moscow? The obvious, moral answer is clearly no.


I don't think I've said we shouldn't impose sanctions, just that there's no chance we will. And that Israel would take no notice if we did. There are good moral reasons for doing things, even if they make no difference.

Do you believe sanctions have made any difference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine then?

User avatar
Vermilion
Gnome Thief
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: Israel-Gaza Conflict
by Vermilion » Mon Feb 26, 2024 8:27 pm

Cuttooth wrote:You wouldn’t think the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council would you.


So is Russia.

Tbh, i'm not sure the council actually functions anymore, at least not how it was originally intended to anyways.

It's nothing new though, just look at how the US and UK governments basically stuck two fingers up at it when they invaded Iraq.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andretmzt, Dowbocop, Edd, Grumpy David, Lex-Man, Lime, shy guy 64, Skarjo, wensleydale and 560 guests