How was the 1,400 Israeli figure obtained? How many were actually IDF or Bet Shin? And no, I'm not being heartless either!
On the news on R4 at some point last night it said 300 of the 1400 killed by Hamas were IDF which seems surprisingly high. Dunno how many of them were off duty or were actually involved in fire fights with Hamas.
As in the early stages of this conflict, once again the best commentary to watch is from a comedian.
Here’s US comic Andrew Schulz and (a very diverse group of) friends breaking down the conflict, in a way that only comedians can. (With some adult language)
Europe does need to start having difficult conversations about its own security. This is another reason why it is nigh on inevitable that the UK is going to get closer and closer to the EU’s orbit again in coming years. The strengthening of the common defence and security policy is going to happen, and the UK is going to have to play a part, in one way or another.
It’s why I think Macron’s proposals of associate EU membership and a two speed Europe are so interesting. I believe there is going to be a fundamental shift in the EU’s priorities and position in the next decade, and it’s going to pull everyone in Europe in, whether they are keen on the idea or not.
On the contrary, having a relatively massive military power outside of the EU orbit and sclerotic discussion groups, is exactly what a Europe prepared to defend itself needs to have.
That in itself is going to require some form of security guarantees/integration however.
No, quite the opposite. It reinforces the need for internal co-operation against an external enemy, but with the key decisions being taken outside the full control of the EU bureaucracy.
I see a lot of people of undoubtedly goodwill and good faith calling for a ceasefire. But I just do not see how one is feasible. The Israelis absolutely value Israeli lives more highly than Palestinian ones, of course they do. Every government of every country in the world values the lives of its citizens over those of all other states.
So, for as long as Hamas makes clear it wants to kill Israelis, and it did exactly that on 7th October, Israel will do what it judges is best to stop it happening. A ceasefire only happens once Israel believes the Hamas threat is no longer there. For me, it is entirely, though depressingly, understandable.
Of course, the quickest way to a ceasefire is for Hamas to lay down its arms. But no-one seems to be calling for that.
I don't think the fact that one side doesn't want a ceasefire is a compelling case against the principle of a ceasefire. I mean, if both sides wanted a ceasefire then nobody would need to call for one.
I see a lot of people of undoubtedly goodwill and good faith calling for a ceasefire. But I just do not see how one is feasible. The Israelis absolutely value Israeli lives more highly than Palestinian ones, of course they do. Every government of every country in the world values the lives of its citizens over those of all other states.
So, for as long as Hamas makes clear it wants to kill Israelis, and it did exactly that on 7th October, Israel will do what it judges is best to stop it happening. A ceasefire only happens once Israel believes the Hamas threat is no longer there. For me, it is entirely, though depressingly, understandable.
Of course, the quickest way to a ceasefire is for Hamas to lay down its arms. But no-one seems to be calling for that.
All perfectly reasonable until the last sentence which is simply bonkers. No-one?
Point taken. But in this country at least there does seem to be far less focus among those calling for an immediate ceasefire on Hamas laying down its arms.
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Most negotiated solutions involve a leap of faith to be made, even while there are people saying terrible things. We started talking to the IRA while the IRA was still active and calling the abolition of Northern Ireland.
There are a thousand reasons not to trust the other side, but there’s no way out without doing so. I, sitting in my comfortable home in London, am not going to tell Israelis scarred by 7 October that they have to make that leap of faith today, nor am I going to tell Gazans being bombed that they have to make a leap of faith today. Those decisions are not ours to take. But we know the path that follows if everyone keeps finding reasons not to find peace.
Civilians killed / missing in Israel and Palestine (7th-31st October): Totals Palestine: 10,525 (91%) Israel: 1,073 (9%)
Children Palestine: 3,542 (99%) Israel: 30 (1%)
I'd like to know how the Palestinian figures are being verified. No I'm not being heartless but evidence is required. Save The Children have backed it up but the days of me trusting the word of international aid agencies are long gone.
How was the 1,400 Israeli figure obtained? How many were actually IDF or Bet Shin? And no, I'm not being heartless either!
It's a fair question but remember that Israel is a pretty open society in which authority can be criticised and lies of the government at least countered. A huge amount of the world's media has descended there and been shown an enormous amount of evidence. Helped of course by the fact that the perpetrators were so keen to 'share' the evidence of what they were doing. So I don't think it is as much of an issue as what is or isn't unfolding in Gaza.
Unfortunately the desire for 'balance' (among those media who aren't nakedly partisan in this conflict) means they tend to give equal weight to claims made by both sides. Which is stupid. If Israel claimed that 500 people had been killed as the result of a Hamas attack on a hospital it would very quickly be exposed as bunk and they'd never hear the end of it.
Can you evidence the bolded statement; because I can evidence the exact opposite:
How was the 1,400 Israeli figure obtained? How many were actually IDF or Bet Shin? And no, I'm not being heartless either!
On the news on R4 at some point last night it said 300 of the 1400 killed by Hamas were IDF which seems surprisingly high. Dunno how many of them were off duty or were actually involved in fire fights with Hamas.
I see a lot of people of undoubtedly goodwill and good faith calling for a ceasefire. But I just do not see how one is feasible. The Israelis absolutely value Israeli lives more highly than Palestinian ones, of course they do. Every government of every country in the world values the lives of its citizens over those of all other states.
So, for as long as Hamas makes clear it wants to kill Israelis, and it did exactly that on 7th October, Israel will do what it judges is best to stop it happening. A ceasefire only happens once Israel believes the Hamas threat is no longer there. For me, it is entirely, though depressingly, understandable.
Of course, the quickest way to a ceasefire is for Hamas to lay down its arms. But no-one seems to be calling for that.
I don't think the fact that one side doesn't want a ceasefire is a compelling case against the principle of a ceasefire. I mean, if both sides wanted a ceasefire then nobody would need to call for one.
The principle, no. The practical imposition, yes.
In practical terms a ceasefire won't happen because Israel doesn't want one, for sure. I don't think that means it is wrong to call for one. People call for things that they don't expect to happen all the time. You could call that virtue signalling, but actually I think one of the roles of politics is to express views on normative questions, not just positive ones.
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
3,648 children killed by the IDF since the 7th 2,290 women killed by the IDF since the 7th
Those like Cyclefree who oppose an immediate ceasefire are supporting the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian women and children in huge numbers, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Withdraw that remark. It is seriously defamatory. I have said from the start that (a) I am against a Gaza invasion; (b) civilians should be allowed to leave; (c) there should be a pause to allow humanitarian aid.
Settler violence against the Palestinians has been going on for years. Telephone wires and electricity cables are frequently cut until a point arrives when the home owners give up the ghost and move out. In comparison a tiny number of Orthodox Jews getting their Mezuzahs taken down seems utterly trivial which is why your posts seem so inexplicably one-eyed.
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
3,648 children killed by the IDF since the 7th 2,290 women killed by the IDF since the 7th
Those like Cyclefree who oppose an immediate ceasefire are supporting the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian women and children in huge numbers, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Withdraw that remark. It is seriously defamatory. I have said from the start that (a) I am against a Gaza invasion; (b) civilians should be allowed to leave; (c) there should be a pause to allow humanitarian aid.
Can you defame an anonymous poster? It's about the impact of loss of reputation and, unless you're claiming your reputation in this forum as an anonymous poster is significant enough to sue over, this is ridiculous.
Also, fair play to Sunak. He’s got some serious names at his AI conference. Including Sam Altman of OpenAI, probably the most serious of all. And Elon….
Bit of a coup for Sunak this.
The swing voters in hyper-marginals like Bury North talk of little else except AI. They don't give a shit about access to GPs or #cozzielivs, they want to discuss mixed scenario model free deep reinforcement learning using quantile regression soft critic.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Again, I just cannot understand Rishi Sunak’s political strategy. For a Prime Minister who is perceived as out of touch with the day to day concerns of ordinary people, why on earth prioritise an AI summit.
He needs a job after the next GE, doesn’t he?
Bingo. Doesn’t care about the next election, he's banning smoking, that's his 'legacy' taken care of, now it's off to be a 'tech bro'.
Not the worst legacy to have.
That's a matter of opinion. I sympathise with your thoughts on smoking having read your comments on it, but it doesn't excuse a ban.
RECENTLY, AN AUSTRALIAN-PALESTINIAN friend of mine was invited to appear on Australia’s national television network to discuss the situation in and around Gaza. His white interviewers posed all the usual questions: Can you defend what we’ve seen from Hamas militants? How has the Palestinian cause been helped by this violence? How can anyone defend the slaughter of young music lovers at a music festival? Do you defend Hamas? They probably expected a defensive reaction from him, but calmly, in his smooth Australian-accented English, my friend had already turned the interview on its head. “I want to know why I’m here today, and why I haven’t been here for the past year,” he said gently.
Apologies if it has already been shared - I've had a busy few days at work so far this week, and so have been more absent then straight after October 7th
Raising comparisons with Algeria or 1790’s Haiti shows the author is not arguing in good faith.
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Most negotiated solutions involve a leap of faith to be made, even while there are people saying terrible things. We started talking to the IRA while the IRA was still active and calling the abolition of Northern Ireland.
A united Ireland is not an equivalent political demand to the abolition of the state of Israel.
If you transposed the outline of the GFA as a solution to the Israel/Palestine question it would obviously be unacceptable.
It’s not a perfect match, no.
I find all these calls for UK politicians and others to say this or that on what’s going on in Gaza rather pointless. As if Benjamin Netanyahu is going to decide what to do based on what Keir Starmer says, or what my local trade union branch says!
So, what can we do instead of these performative pronouncements? We can offer our experience, of how we resolved what was once the terrorism hotspot of Europe. It doesn’t match Israel/Palestine in every way possible. Of course it doesn’t. It’s a longer running dispute, but one that has seen fewer wars fought over it. But it is something we can offer.
All these clowns can bump their gums and it will make no difference, both sides will continue doing what they do. Totally pointless virtue signalling.
RECENTLY, AN AUSTRALIAN-PALESTINIAN friend of mine was invited to appear on Australia’s national television network to discuss the situation in and around Gaza. His white interviewers posed all the usual questions: Can you defend what we’ve seen from Hamas militants? How has the Palestinian cause been helped by this violence? How can anyone defend the slaughter of young music lovers at a music festival? Do you defend Hamas? They probably expected a defensive reaction from him, but calmly, in his smooth Australian-accented English, my friend had already turned the interview on its head. “I want to know why I’m here today, and why I haven’t been here for the past year,” he said gently.
Apologies if it has already been shared - I've had a busy few days at work so far this week, and so have been more absent then straight after October 7th
Palestine gets orders of magnitude more political attention and news coverage than most other long term conflicts around the world. I can understand why the interviewee may consider that's still not enough, because they have suffered for decades at the hands both of Israel and their Arab neighbours, but under the surface of this article are some assumptions about race and Israel which could be lifted straight from Baddiel's Jews don't count book.
"His white interviewers" tees up the narrative early on. Then in multiple places in the article the complaint is that the Australian media care more about Jewish lives than Palestinian ones. And finally, there comes a list of historical events where oppressed groups attacked white colonisers.
The premise of the article is that Jews are "white", that they are therefore just another form of European imperialist, their own history of oppression and genocide is therefore irrelevant, and the violent opposition to the very existence of Israel since its inception is just another example of anti-imperialism.
This goes to the nub of some far left arguments about Palestine. It's different from right wing anti-semitism because it's grounded in the idea that Jews don't count. They are "culturally white". Alien implants in the Middle East. They don't belong there. etc.
On Monday, US Rep. Earl Bluemenauer, long-serving Democrat from Oregon 3rd District, centered on Portland, will NOT be seeking another term.
First candidate out of the gate for this solid-Blue district is Multnomah County councilmember Shusheela Jayapal, older sister of Seattle Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA CD07).
There WILL be other candidates, but IF the PDX Jayapal is elected to US House, she and the SEA Jayapal would be the second sisters act in Congress.
Note that Shusheela Jayapal has resigned from her county council seat, making an advantage out of necessity; under Multnomah Co charter, and councilmember seeking another office MUST resign from the council.
I see a lot of people of undoubtedly goodwill and good faith calling for a ceasefire. But I just do not see how one is feasible. The Israelis absolutely value Israeli lives more highly than Palestinian ones, of course they do. Every government of every country in the world values the lives of its citizens over those of all other states.
So, for as long as Hamas makes clear it wants to kill Israelis, and it did exactly that on 7th October, Israel will do what it judges is best to stop it happening. A ceasefire only happens once Israel believes the Hamas threat is no longer there. For me, it is entirely, though depressingly, understandable.
Of course, the quickest way to a ceasefire is for Hamas to lay down its arms. But no-one seems to be calling for that.
I don't think the fact that one side doesn't want a ceasefire is a compelling case against the principle of a ceasefire. I mean, if both sides wanted a ceasefire then nobody would need to call for one.
The principle, no. The practical imposition, yes.
In practical terms a ceasefire won't happen because Israel doesn't want one, for sure. I don't think that means it is wrong to call for one. People call for things that they don't expect to happen all the time. You could call that virtue signalling, but actually I think one of the roles of politics is to express views on normative questions, not just positive ones.
It won't happen because as they have publicly stated, Hamas would just use it to reload, dig in and go again - so of course Israel doesn't want one. As Hamas have done in the past - breaking a supposed one with the 7 October atrocities. It's utterly tragic but there are no options that aren't terrible here.
The danger of our politicians calling for a ceasefire when you know you won't get one too is that you burn bridges with the Israelis as they won't think you are serious or understand the gravity and difficulty of the situation. Bridges you could request they do things - like allowing more aid in, ensure third country citizens can be repatriated. Pausing operations to allow escape or humanitarian aid. Possibly calling for a ceasefire in the future when it might be achievable because most of Israel's key aims have been met or backing talks that could lead to one eventually. Not that it hugely matters what the Leader of the Opposition thinks.
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Most negotiated solutions involve a leap of faith to be made, even while there are people saying terrible things. We started talking to the IRA while the IRA was still active and calling the abolition of Northern Ireland.
There are a thousand reasons not to trust the other side, but there’s no way out without doing so. I, sitting in my comfortable home in London, am not going to tell Israelis scarred by 7 October that they have to make that leap of faith today, nor am I going to tell Gazans being bombed that they have to make a leap of faith today. Those decisions are not ours to take. But we know the path that follows if everyone keeps finding reasons not to find peace.
Civilians killed / missing in Israel and Palestine (7th-31st October): Totals Palestine: 10,525 (91%) Israel: 1,073 (9%)
Children Palestine: 3,542 (99%) Israel: 30 (1%)
Not to mention that before Oct 7th in 2023 almost 200 Palestinians had already been killed by Israeli forces, with 2023 being the deadliest year for children, in the West Bank where there is no Hamas on record.
RECENTLY, AN AUSTRALIAN-PALESTINIAN friend of mine was invited to appear on Australia’s national television network to discuss the situation in and around Gaza. His white interviewers posed all the usual questions: Can you defend what we’ve seen from Hamas militants? How has the Palestinian cause been helped by this violence? How can anyone defend the slaughter of young music lovers at a music festival? Do you defend Hamas? They probably expected a defensive reaction from him, but calmly, in his smooth Australian-accented English, my friend had already turned the interview on its head. “I want to know why I’m here today, and why I haven’t been here for the past year,” he said gently.
Apologies if it has already been shared - I've had a busy few days at work so far this week, and so have been more absent then straight after October 7th
Palestine gets orders of magnitude more political attention and news coverage than most other long term conflicts around the world. I can understand why the interviewee may consider that's still not enough, because they have suffered for decades at the hands both of Israel and their Arab neighbours, but under the surface of this article are some assumptions about race and Israel which could be lifted straight from Baddiel's Jews don't count book.
"His white interviewers" tees up the narrative early on. Then in multiple places in the article the complaint is that the Australian media care more about Jewish lives than Palestinian ones. And finally, there comes a list of historical events where oppressed groups attacked white colonisers.
The premise of the article is that Jews are "white", that they are therefore just another form of European imperialist, their own history of oppression and genocide is therefore irrelevant, and the violent opposition to the very existence of Israel since its inception is just another example of anti-imperialism.
This goes to the nub of some far left arguments about Palestine. It's different from right wing anti-semitism because it's grounded in the idea that Jews don't count. They are "culturally white". Alien implants in the Middle East. They don't belong there. etc.
Prolonged ethnic conflict almost never can be explained by Oppressor v Oppressed.
RECENTLY, AN AUSTRALIAN-PALESTINIAN friend of mine was invited to appear on Australia’s national television network to discuss the situation in and around Gaza. His white interviewers posed all the usual questions: Can you defend what we’ve seen from Hamas militants? How has the Palestinian cause been helped by this violence? How can anyone defend the slaughter of young music lovers at a music festival? Do you defend Hamas? They probably expected a defensive reaction from him, but calmly, in his smooth Australian-accented English, my friend had already turned the interview on its head. “I want to know why I’m here today, and why I haven’t been here for the past year,” he said gently.
Apologies if it has already been shared - I've had a busy few days at work so far this week, and so have been more absent then straight after October 7th
Palestine gets orders of magnitude more political attention and news coverage than most other long term conflicts around the world. I can understand why the interviewee may consider that's still not enough, because they have suffered for decades at the hands both of Israel and their Arab neighbours, but under the surface of this article are some assumptions about race and Israel which could be lifted straight from Baddiel's Jews don't count book.
"His white interviewers" tees up the narrative early on. Then in multiple places in the article the complaint is that the Australian media care more about Jewish lives than Palestinian ones. And finally, there comes a list of historical events where oppressed groups attacked white colonisers.
The premise of the article is that Jews are "white", that they are therefore just another form of European imperialist, their own history of oppression and genocide is therefore irrelevant, and the violent opposition to the very existence of Israel since its inception is just another example of anti-imperialism.
This goes to the nub of some far left arguments about Palestine. It's different from right wing anti-semitism because it's grounded in the idea that Jews don't count. They are "culturally white". Alien implants in the Middle East. They don't belong there. etc.
The premise of the article is not that Jews are white, it is that Israel is a settler colonialist project, and the Palestinians are oppressed by the state of Israel under that framework.
If you watched the interview discussed, it is very clear why he is making the argument that Israeli lives are given more value than Palestinian lives; because in that interview his friend remarks how he is never asked to appear to discuss Palestinian deaths, or to condemn the IDF for them, but is asked to discuss Israeli deaths and condemn Hamas. Just like the interview on ITV where a man talked about his family being killed by Israeli bombs and the interviewer "clarifying" that Israel has assured people it is only targeting Hamas and the interviewee having to clarify that of the 21 members of his family killed, over half were children, and they were not members of Hamas.
Edit: Here is his further clarification that he didn't "lose" 21 members of his family
The collected Dr Who serials 1963-1996 is now on iPlayer. Hasn't got everything ("Thirty Years in the Tardis" is missing) but you can't have everything.
Today's background music-while-I-work is "The Masque of Mandragora": not one of the famous ones but Baker and Sladen are on top form and it's only four episodes.
MSNBC - Ethics panel peels back the curtain on George Santos probe
The House Ethics Committee generally says very little about its pending investigations. On George Santos, there's a reason the panel made an exception.
It’s been nearly a week since a group of House Republicans from New York launched a new effort to expel one of their home-state colleagues: Rep. George Santos. For the GOP members behind the effort, the indicted congressman can no longer remain a member in good standing — his not guilty plea notwithstanding — so they’ve introduced a privileged resolution to force his ouster.
As the chamber prepares to deal with that measure, the House Ethics Committee peeled back the curtain a bit on its scrutiny of the scandal-plagued lawmaker. The Hill reported:
"The Ethics Committee on Tuesday said it will “announce its next course of action” in its investigation into Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) on or before Nov. 17. ... The announcement from the Ethics Committee, which has been investigating Santos for months, may influence how some lawmakers vote on the effort to expel Santos, which could hit the floor as soon as Wednesday."
In case this isn’t obvious, statements like these aren’t common. Ordinarily, the Ethics panel tells the public when an investigation begins and when it ends. In between those points, the committee generally maintains a tight lid on disclosures.
But in this instance, members of the Ethics Committee — which began its probe in the spring, and then expanded it after Santos’ criminal charges — decided to give their colleagues an update on their progress. They didn’t offer much in the way of details. . . .
For those hoping to expel Santos, this wasn’t exactly helpful. Members who remain on the fence about whether to kick the New York Republican out of Congress suddenly have an excuse: They can say they want to wait to learn more from the Ethics panel about the “next course of action” it has in mind.
They’ll have to decide relatively quickly: The House vote on the expulsion resolution could come as early as Wednesday (as in, today).
A Washington Post report added, if the resolution were to pass, Santos would be the first House member to be ousted “without having been convicted of a crime. Establishing such a precedent has prompted members of both parties to seriously weigh the consequences of expelling Santos, who has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal counts in New York that include fraud, money laundering, falsifying records and aggravated identity theft.”
As we’ve discussed, expelling sitting members of Congress isn’t easy — it requires a two-thirds majority of those in the chamber — and it’s only happened twice since the Civil War. In 1980, Democratic Rep. Michael Myers of Pennsylvania was expelled over his involvement with the Abscam scandal, and in 2002, Democratic Rep. Jim Traficant of Ohio was expelled after he was convicted on multiple corruption charges. . . .
In the modern world, borders get redrawn and people get moved. For all that we have declared the forcible moving of people to be a war crime, doing so has been the way to peace in Europe.
I mentioned at the end of the last thread the absurdity that we have these so-called refugee camps in the first place. Full of third and fourth generation descendents of people who could have been classed as refugees.
We saw a massive slaughter in Europe. Lines on maps drawn and redrawn. Countries created and empires removed, borders shifted and peoples relocated. For peace.
The root cause of the continuing barbarity in the middle east is that a similar process did not happen. Instead of adjusting to the new boundaries, waves of war were unleashed to make even more displaced people and yet more redrawn borders.
The poor sods being used by Hamas are not refugees. They are political pawns, where the defeated combatants of the 48, 67 and 73 wars refuse to accept their defeat and bleat on at the international community to push the magic reset button and remove the Jew from their lands.
We do not have generational camps of displaced people from the Memeland. Or any other former place. Poland does not burn a torch for its lost territories. It needs to stop in the middle east, because regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, if we end up with an eventual ceasefire where we have all these people left as pawns by the arab world then the next round of bloodshed won't be far away.
In the modern world, borders do not get redrawn and people moved. That was true maybe 70 years ago, but the rules-based international order has largely stopped the annexation of land by military force. We went into Iraq to stop them annexing Kuwait. We are supporting Ukraine against Russia’s attempted annexation. I think the West regrets not doing more over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Yet borders being redrawn and people moved (or killed...) is exactly what Hamas want. And, in reality, anybody who chants 'from the river to the sea'.
Here is a Hamas leader saying very clearly that they will repeat the October 7 massacres for as long as it takes to destroy and remove Israel completely. Their aim is genocidal. And a ceasefire will be used by them to prepare for the next massacre.
Those who support a ceasefire (other than a temporary pause for the provision of humanitarian aid / to allow the children, sick and vulnerable etc.,) are supporting this, even if they try to fool themselves otherwise.
Most negotiated solutions involve a leap of faith to be made, even while there are people saying terrible things. We started talking to the IRA while the IRA was still active and calling the abolition of Northern Ireland.
A united Ireland is not an equivalent political demand to the abolition of the state of Israel.
If you transposed the outline of the GFA as a solution to the Israel/Palestine question it would obviously be unacceptable.
Sinn Fein settled for less than a united Ireland. Hamas wont get an abolition of the State of Israel nor should it
Its called negotiation and compromise
Something an Israel backed by the West and Hamas are currently entrenched against.
If I understand your position You are supporting Israels right to say no and the status quo
Only a position where all sides are forced to negotiate in good faith will bring about a lasting peace from the river to the sea
Hamas are religious fundamentalists who believe it's their duty to drive Jews out of the Middle-East even if that means millions of deaths. They've said as much again and again. The conflict in Ireland (and to some extent disputes between Israel and the PA) were/are political - about how Northern Ireland should be governed and by who and therefore much easier (though still difficult) to find a solution to. If something's political, there's usually a compromise to be had once both sides realise they can't achieve their goals through violence.
The problem with Hamas is that although the comparison is imperfect, like ISIS or Al Qaeda they're a death cult for whom the violence is part of the point. There's not much you can negotiate or compromise with as regards to a permanent settlement, rather than concessions or containment.
Comments
https://oct7map.com/
Here’s US comic Andrew Schulz and (a very diverse group of) friends breaking down the conflict, in a way that only comedians can. (With some adult language)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QQQpSHQ6R70
https://www.972mag.com/israeli-protest-gaza-war-repression/
https://www.972mag.com/israel-gaza-war-political-persecution/
https://www.972mag.com/israelis-kidnapped-gaza-protest/
NEW THREAD
The two Muslim councillors who quit Labour over Starmer's Palestine policy have formed the 'Independent Group', joined by a long-standing independent.
The six Corbynite councillors who quit for the same reason have formed 'Oxford Socialist Independents'.
That leaves one further quittee who I confidently expect to declare as 'Popular Front of Cowley' next week.
"His white interviewers" tees up the narrative early on. Then in multiple places in the article the complaint is that the Australian media care more about Jewish lives than Palestinian ones. And finally, there comes a list of historical events where oppressed groups attacked white colonisers.
The premise of the article is that Jews are "white", that they are therefore just another form of European imperialist, their own history of oppression and genocide is therefore irrelevant, and the violent opposition to the very existence of Israel since its inception is just another example of anti-imperialism.
This goes to the nub of some far left arguments about Palestine. It's different from right wing anti-semitism because it's grounded in the idea that Jews don't count. They are "culturally white". Alien implants in the Middle East. They don't belong there. etc.
On Monday, US Rep. Earl Bluemenauer, long-serving Democrat from Oregon 3rd District, centered on Portland, will NOT be seeking another term.
First candidate out of the gate for this solid-Blue district is Multnomah County councilmember Shusheela Jayapal, older sister of Seattle Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA CD07).
There WILL be other candidates, but IF the PDX Jayapal is elected to US House, she and the SEA Jayapal would be the second sisters act in Congress.
Note that Shusheela Jayapal has resigned from her county council seat, making an advantage out of necessity; under Multnomah Co charter, and councilmember seeking another office MUST resign from the council.
The danger of our politicians calling for a ceasefire when you know you won't get one too is that you burn bridges with the Israelis as they won't think you are serious or understand the gravity and difficulty of the situation. Bridges you could request they do things - like allowing more aid in, ensure third country citizens can be repatriated. Pausing operations to allow escape or humanitarian aid. Possibly calling for a ceasefire in the future when it might be achievable because most of Israel's key aims have been met or backing talks that could lead to one eventually. Not that it hugely matters what the Leader of the Opposition thinks.
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/172-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-forces-in-2023-un/2977964
If you watched the interview discussed, it is very clear why he is making the argument that Israeli lives are given more value than Palestinian lives; because in that interview his friend remarks how he is never asked to appear to discuss Palestinian deaths, or to condemn the IDF for them, but is asked to discuss Israeli deaths and condemn Hamas. Just like the interview on ITV where a man talked about his family being killed by Israeli bombs and the interviewer "clarifying" that Israel has assured people it is only targeting Hamas and the interviewee having to clarify that of the 21 members of his family killed, over half were children, and they were not members of Hamas.
Edit: Here is his further clarification that he didn't "lose" 21 members of his family
https://twitter.com/alnaouqa/status/1719637340056858921
Today's background music-while-I-work is "The Masque of Mandragora": not one of the famous ones but Baker and Sladen are on top form and it's only four episodes.
The House Ethics Committee generally says very little about its pending investigations. On George Santos, there's a reason the panel made an exception.
It’s been nearly a week since a group of House Republicans from New York launched a new effort to expel one of their home-state colleagues: Rep. George Santos. For the GOP members behind the effort, the indicted congressman can no longer remain a member in good standing — his not guilty plea notwithstanding — so they’ve introduced a privileged resolution to force his ouster.
As the chamber prepares to deal with that measure, the House Ethics Committee peeled back the curtain a bit on its scrutiny of the scandal-plagued lawmaker. The Hill reported:
"The Ethics Committee on Tuesday said it will “announce its next course of action” in its investigation into Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) on or before Nov. 17. ... The announcement from the Ethics Committee, which has been investigating Santos for months, may influence how some lawmakers vote on the effort to expel Santos, which could hit the floor as soon as Wednesday."
In case this isn’t obvious, statements like these aren’t common. Ordinarily, the Ethics panel tells the public when an investigation begins and when it ends. In between those points, the committee generally maintains a tight lid on disclosures.
But in this instance, members of the Ethics Committee — which began its probe in the spring, and then expanded it after Santos’ criminal charges — decided to give their colleagues an update on their progress. They didn’t offer much in the way of details. . . .
For those hoping to expel Santos, this wasn’t exactly helpful. Members who remain on the fence about whether to kick the New York Republican out of Congress suddenly have an excuse: They can say they want to wait to learn more from the Ethics panel about the “next course of action” it has in mind.
They’ll have to decide relatively quickly: The House vote on the expulsion resolution could come as early as Wednesday (as in, today).
A Washington Post report added, if the resolution were to pass, Santos would be the first House member to be ousted “without having been convicted of a crime. Establishing such a precedent has prompted members of both parties to seriously weigh the consequences of expelling Santos, who has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal counts in New York that include fraud, money laundering, falsifying records and aggravated identity theft.”
As we’ve discussed, expelling sitting members of Congress isn’t easy — it requires a two-thirds majority of those in the chamber — and it’s only happened twice since the Civil War. In 1980, Democratic Rep. Michael Myers of Pennsylvania was expelled over his involvement with the Abscam scandal, and in 2002, Democratic Rep. Jim Traficant of Ohio was expelled after he was convicted on multiple corruption charges. . . .
The problem with Hamas is that although the comparison is imperfect, like ISIS or Al Qaeda they're a death cult for whom the violence is part of the point. There's not much you can negotiate or compromise with as regards to a permanent settlement, rather than concessions or containment.