Israel/Palestine (Conflict to more Conflicts)

[Scouse]

You don't have to weigh in on the wider issue @Tom to spot a clear war crime going on right now tbh.

The wider issue is articulated above (by the retiring UN human rights director, for example). But you don't even need to form an opinion on it if you don't want to. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't point at what's going on right now and go "war crime", when it so clearly is. That bit is simple, because war crime is never justified. You don't need to know the history - because history cannot justify war crime.

 

[Scouse]

Here's an article from BBC "Verify" which should be prompting international outrage.

Israel is telling Gazan civilians to go to specified safe zones. They're tweeting maps showing exactly where civilians should move. Civilians are obeying and then Israel is bombing them.

If you obey Israeli orders, they knowingly bomb you.

Strikes on south Gaza: BBC verifies attacks in areas of ‘safety’

The BBC has analysed four strikes in south Gaza, where civilians were told to evacuate to.

www.bbc.co.uk

Must be because the Arabs are "inhuman animals" - and why wouldn't you bomb cattle.

 

[old.Osy]

Remember "All Gas, no Brakes?" - he moved on doing his own journalistic reporting, and I think it's great.


View: https://youtu.be/SWvSxSEZ4WM

 

[Scouse]

Thanks @old.Osy. Will watch that tonight (annoying that you have to sign in). But that woman in the first 37 seconds annoyed the shit out of me.

"We've tried everything"
What, like a secular society with equal rights for all?

 

[BloodOmen]

Remember watching this years ago

Louis Theroux Specials - Ultra Zionists

Louis Theroux spends time with a subculture of ultra-nationalist Jewish settlers.

www.bbc.co.uk

worth a watch if you've not seen it, some of the things the Jewish settlers were saying in that were pretty horrific.

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/tomaspueyo/status/1720114001609162958?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Scouse]

One state. Secular.

Israel's not an honest actor. It doesn't want peace.

 

[Wij]

One state. Secular.

Israel's not an honest actor. It doesn't want peace.

Why? If it had led to peace why would that be a bad thing?

Anyway, it was just background info. What’s to dislike about background info?

 

[Wij]

It’s a thread if you didn’t actually click it about what they managed to agree on in the past.

 

[Scouse]

I clicked on it and read a bit but I don't twatter because it's so painful m8. It's short format makes complex stuff difficult.

He's an expert on everything that bloke isn't he. From story telling, to neurophysiology, to covid etc. Seems no end to his talent.

His opinion is as valid as mine tbh. But then, he's at odds with the people I seem to coincidentally fall in line with.

There will never be real and just peace without secular governmemt.

 

[Scouse]

Way to go Israel.

One grim milestone is fast approaching. The United Nations (UN) says around 9,700 civilians have been killed in Ukraine since the full-scale Russian invasion 21 months ago

Some of the Palestinian dead would have been part of Hamas. But even if that proportion is as high as 10%, which is unlikely, it means that Israel is on course to have killed as many Palestinian civilians in just over a month than Russia has killed in Ukraine since February 2022.

One month to kill as many civilians as Russia's managed in 21 months.

Israel IS worse than Russia. It's deliberately targetting civilians - because it doesn't care, because they're seen as inhuman animals, not people. They're certainly not equal in any way.

And on the lie of Israel being an honest actor, out for either peace, or any genuine settlement:

While Israel's longest-serving prime minister is always careful about what he says in public, his actions over many years show that he does not want to allow the Palestinians to have an independent state. That would involve giving up land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which the Israeli right wing believes belongs to the Jews.

From time to time, Mr Netanyahu's pronouncements would leak. In 2019, a number of Israeli sources say that he told a group of his Likud members of parliament that if they opposed a Palestinian state they should support schemes to pump money - mostly provided by Qatar - into Gaza. He told them that deepening the division between Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank would make it impossible to establish a state.

A single secular state. No land for the Jews. A land for everyone, with freedom of religion, is the only just solution.

 

[Wij]

Pointless numbers game is pointless. Russia has killed about 10,000 civilians in Ukraine since 2022 but 70,000 soldiers. Russia and Assad have killed about 500,000 in Syria. Deliberately bombing hospitals without even a pretence of there being any military presence there. Yemen casualties aren't far off. But you still insist Israel is the worst in the world.

And it's not like it's just in retaliation for the massacre of 1,400. Hamas explicitly promised to repeat the massacres again and again, without end. So Israel can argue that they are trying to prevent thousands more casualties.

I don't agree with exactly how Israel is persuing its campaign. I'm sure there must be ways of smashing Hamas that would result in fewer civilian casualties. But even then. Worse than Russia? It seems more personal than logical.

 

[Scouse]

Planned protest on Armistice Day would be 'disrespectful', says Sunak

Rishi Sunak says there is a risk war memorials such as the Cenotaph in London could be "desecrated".

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't think it'd be disrespectful. I think there's war ongoing in a country we support.

For me, it's really apt.

 

[Wij]

Meanwhile, the UN continues to debase itself:


View: https://twitter.com/alinejadmasih/status/1720462552503644503?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Scouse]

Meanwhile, the UN continues to debase itself

Twatter aside, the chair of the UN Human Rights Council is a Czech national at the moment.

So what's the specific forum this American Iranian activist complaining about? I tried looking it up but can't find it. Clearly Fox News (formerly a news channel of ridicule around here) is now obviously the place to go for high quality commentary. I was amused to find they ran a "It's Time For the UN to be 'evicted from America'" story. But whatever's useful against any perceived Israeli "enemy" eh?


How is the UN debasing itself exactly? It's the United Nations. It's made up of all of the countries of the world. So some countries are going to host various forums on a rotating basis. You can't chuck countries out - no matter how distasteful we find them.

I don't understand why you constantly select partisan voices on twitter as if they're impartial commentators. She's absolutely got a voice and an opinion to hold, in the same way that the Israeli-sponsored UN Watch twitter account you reposted from earlier do. But there's an anti-UN narrative being replicated here and it's funny that it's intensified since the UN have had the temerity to justly criticise Israel.

This thread isn't about Iran's membership of the UN. And whataboutism doesn't absolve Israel of ongoing war-crimes and the mass killing of children.

 

[Wij]

Twatter aside, the chair of the UN Human Rights Council is a Czech national at the moment.

So what's the specific forum this American Iranian activist complaining about? I tried looking it up but can't find it. Clearly Fox News (formerly a news channel of ridicule around here) is now obviously the place to go for high quality commentary. I was amused to find they ran a "It's Time For the UN to be 'evicted from America'" story. But whatever's useful against any perceived Israeli "enemy" eh?


How is the UN debasing itself exactly? It's the United Nations. It's made up of all of the countries of the world. So some countries are going to host various forums on a rotating basis. You can't chuck countries out - no matter how distasteful we find them.

I don't understand why you constantly select partisan voices on twitter as if they're impartial commentators. She's absolutely got a voice and an opinion to hold, in the same way that the Israeli-sponsored UN Watch twitter account you reposted from earlier do. But there's an anti-UN narrative being replicated here and it's funny that it's intensified since the UN have had the temerity to justly criticise Israel.

This thread isn't about Iran's membership of the UN. And whataboutism doesn't absolve Israel of ongoing war-crimes and the mass killing of children.

It’s Iran. Iran directly sponsored and supported Hamas. As it does the Houthis in Yemen. Iran and Human Rights is not credible. Iran has one of the worst records on human rights in the world. It’s a theocracy where their sky fairy book is the law.

 

[Wij]

It’s not just on Fox News by the way.

Iran's appointment to chair UN rights meeting draws condemnation

The United States and rights groups complained on Thursday that it was "insulting" to allow Iran's envoy to chair a U.N. human rights council meeting in Geneva, citing violations by Iranian authorities, especially those against women.

www.reuters.com

 

[Scouse]

We all agree Iran is terribad. But it's a single fekking meeting in Geneva, not chair of the council.

This is a distraction sideshow, nothing more.

"Israel is starving and bombing children, right now."

"But there's an Iranian hosting a meeting in Switzerland"

"Oh fucking hell. Lets ignore the war crimes then."

 

[Wij]

We all agree Iran is terribad. But it's a single fekking meeting in Geneva, not chair of the council.

This is a distraction sideshow, nothing more.

"Israel is starving and bombing children, right now."

"But there's an Iranian hosting a meeting in Switzerland"

"Oh fucking hell. Lets ignore the war crimes then."

It was a relevant aside. I never said it meant we can ignore war crimes. By either side for that matter.

 

[Scouse]

It was a relevant aside.

I don't think it was. It was a flippant distraction about a frippery. There's a war on and 2 million civlians are suffering at the hands of a well armed state and we're talking about a bloke charing a meeting in Geneva.

You said that means the UN was debasing itself! Lol!

It's almost like it's out of the Israel playbook. Don't look at the bad thing Israel's doing. Whatabout this instead?

 

[Wij]

I don't think it was. It was a flippant distraction about a frippery. There's a war on and 2 million civlians are suffering at the hands of a well armed state and we're talking about a bloke charing a meeting in Geneva.

You said that means the UN was debasing itself! Lol!

It's almost like it's out of the Israel playbook. Don't look at the bad thing Israel's doing. Whatabout this instead?

Iran is part of this war. It is relevant that this is rarely even thought about.

I’m curious what you think Israel’s response to October 7th should have been? Given that Hamas hides its infrastructure amongst civilians (whilst its leaders are elsewhere) do you think there’s a clean response available?

 

[Scouse]

I’m curious what you think Israel’s response to October 7th should have been? Given that Hamas hides its infrastructure amongst civilians (whilst its leaders are elsewhere) do you think there’s a clean response available?

Not war crimes against 2.3 million prisoners.

Should have been?

Israel's response should be an honest admitting that they don't want peace. Israel should acknowledge the level of their culpability in creating the situation in the first place. That if they had honestly pursued peace that perhaps this all could have been avoided decades ago.

What do you think they should do? Given the limitations on military action that you spelled out, their inability to respond without the mass slaughter of innocents. Should they ignore their responsibilities both moral and under international law, throw caution to the wind and continue to slaughter children in the thousands (albeit at a more accelerated rate than they were doing before Hamas's rampage)?

 

[Wij]

Not war crimes against 2.3 million prisoners.

Should have been?

Israel's response should be an honest admitting that they don't want peace. Israel should acknowledge the level of their culpability in creating the situation in the first place. That if they had honestly pursued peace that perhaps this all could have been avoided decades ago.

What do you think they should do? Given the limitations on military action that you spelled out, their inability to respond without the mass slaughter of innocents. Should they ignore their responsibilities both moral and under international law, throw caution to the wind and continue to slaughter children in the thousands (albeit at a more accelerated rate than they were doing before Hamas's rampage)?

Seems like copping out of an answer. I didn't ask what they should have done from 1947. In business we regularly hear the old cliche "We are where we are." You don't get to answer "Well I'd have done things differently since before I was born" cos it doesn't help. That would lead to a justifiable end of contract for being an unhelpful nobhead.

If you want to know what I'd have done, given "We are where we are" then some violent response is inevitable. You can't be in charge of millions of people, including civilians, many of whom want peace, and most of whom weren't born in 1947 to have any responsibility for where they are, and watch women and children being raped and murdered and do nothing for their security. It's not credible. People don't just lay back and die for the perceived sins of their forefathers.

Given that Hamas committed atrocities and war crimes, and is promising even now to continue to do so in perpetuity, I would have decided to respond with violence to try to end their ability to commit violence on the people I was elected to represent. There isn't any other choice that a government could make. And that would mean that civilian casualties on the enemy's side would occur. Many of them. Even when wars are fought mainly between armies rather than in asymmetric warfare that happens. We couldn't have defeated the nazis without spilling the blood of innocent Germans and Japanese. It's horrible but inevitable.

As I've said numerous times, I would not pursue the war in the same way Netenyahu has I'd like to think. I'd take greater care to spare the lives of civilians in Gaza, but given the nature of the situation, that would only make a small difference. If you want to take out Hamas' ability to commit massacres then, given where their infrastructure is, large civilian casualties are inevitable.

The alternative is to accept what Hamas has promised, on TV the other day, not just theoretically in a document, repeats of Oct 7th, rape and murder of civilians, again and again forever. Thousands and thousands of them.

What leader could sanction that? It's not remotely credible. A response is inevitable. Indeed, it was planned for and hoped for. Israel is doing exactly what Hamas wanted.

You can't avoid thinking about that by denying that the past 80 years happened. Whether you like it or not, and many Israelis do not, it happened. We are where we are, but what state could say to its people "Yes, 1,400 festival-goers, kids and women were killed, and it will happen again and again, but we aren't going to respond, because of things that happened in that past that you didn't do."

So, again, without a time machine, what would you do?

 

[Embattle]

In the end neither Hamas nor the people at the top of the Israeli government are particularly bothered at murdering civilians to cover successive failures, bad policies and desire to maintain power.

 

[Scouse]

Sorry @Wij. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and to clarify - Israel should have abided by it's international legal and moral responsibilities and NOT launched an attack on a civilian population, NOT starved them of food and water. NOT committed clear war crimes - as they have clear legal and moral duties not to do.

The decision to attack is a decision rooted in Israeli hatred, in racist zeal - that ethnocentric religious bigotry that defines Israel.

It was a choice. The other choice is to get serious about real peace and transition to a secular government. But Israel doesn't want to choose that because it's a inherently racist bigot of a state.

Your post supports Israel ditching theiir legal and moral responsibilities and paints violent response as inevitable.

It's NOT inevitable. It's a choice.

If it was inevitable then there's no resolution possible and only endless violent crime in tit-for-tat idiocy. Yet peace processes have resolved conflicts all over the world. So inevitability is a lie.

So we come full circle: your painting of Israels response as inevitable and your acceptance of their violent war-crimes as an acceptable response is apologism.

And it's not just apologism, it's full throated approval.

It's an approval that ignores the fact that when Hamas is safely back in it's box, when it's quiet and rockets aren't falling, Israel continues to rape, torture and murder on it's 70-year quest to eradicate non-jews from land their families have lived on for generations.

There is no justification for war crimes and collective punishment.

But you've decided to pick a side and advocate for it, in the face of thousands of dead children in the short term and thousands more when the place is at 'peace'.

But those 'uppity' arabs eh?

 

[Scouse]

Was going to add: you see "sides" in a conflict.

That's not how it is. How it really is is a racist government treating a section of it's own population differently.

That's the root cause of this. And the only route to real peace is equal rights for all.

 

[Scouse]

5% of water requirements are being met. Children under threat of death by dehydration.

Lack of clean drinking water for 95% of people in Gaza threatens health crisis

Polluted water supplies and salty groundwater are making people ill, with UN warning of threat of child deaths from dehydration

www.theguardian.com

Oh. And water needs not being met for over fifteen years before this conflict.

But them uppity arabs eh? Why don't they just shut the fuck up whilst their government starves, rapes, herds and murders them.

 

[Raven]

Yeah, but calling for a ceasefire, on Armistice Day, is illegal.

 

[Scouse]

Meanwhile: In a country that is significantly more enlightened when it comes to freedom of speech (and demonstration) a much more nuanced and complex public conversation is going.

(Which is surprising to me on some level tbh)

‘I, too, am the Jewish community’: rift among US Jews widens over Gaza war

Within families and congregations, on campuses, at protests and online, fissures within Jewish communities are deepening

www.theguardian.com

a quarter of American Jews agree Israel is an “apartheid state”, and one-fifth of those under 40 do not think the Jewish state has a right to exist

Amazed by that tbh.

 

[Wij]

Sorry @Wij. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and to clarify - Israel should have abided by it's international legal and moral responsibilities and NOT launched an attack on a civilian population, NOT starved them of food and water. NOT committed clear war crimes - as they have clear legal and moral duties not to do.

The decision to attack is a decision rooted in Israeli hatred, in racist zeal - that ethnocentric religious bigotry that defines Israel.

It was a choice. The other choice is to get serious about real peace and transition to a secular government. But Israel doesn't want to choose that because it's a inherently racist bigot of a state.

Your post supports Israel ditching theiir legal and moral responsibilities and paints violent response as inevitable.

It's NOT inevitable. It's a choice.

If it was inevitable then there's no resolution possible and only endless violent crime in tit-for-tat idiocy. Yet peace processes have resolved conflicts all over the world. So inevitability is a lie.

So we come full circle: your painting of Israels response as inevitable and your acceptance of their violent war-crimes as an acceptable response is apologism.

And it's not just apologism, it's full throated approval.

It's an approval that ignores the fact that when Hamas is safely back in it's box, when it's quiet and rockets aren't falling, Israel continues to rape, torture and murder on it's 70-year quest to eradicate non-jews from land their families have lived on for generations.

There is no justification for war crimes and collective punishment.

But you've decided to pick a side and advocate for it, in the face of thousands of dead children in the short term and thousands more when the place is at 'peace'.

But those 'uppity' arabs eh?

That’s still a dodge. You aren’t proposing anything Israel could have done in response to October 7th. Do we assume a non-response and waiting for the next atrocity?

Instead you propose a peace process but reject out of hand previous attempts at a peace process because they weren’t the kind of peace you approve of.

You aren’t offering anything serious. Just a moral high ground divorced from the dirty business of dealing with the world as it is instead of as you wish it to be.

Hamas is not interested in your solution of a singular secular Palestine for Arabs and Jews. They explicitly want no Jews in the Middle East. How on Earth do you think you can negotiate your solution with them? Offering solutions that aren’t realistic is just a way of polishing your own halo.