ODI cricket is going to be even less interesting with the loss of Willey and de Kock. The lack of punning opportunities will give us *withdrawal symptoms*.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
One theory is Arab antisemitism is a lingering effect of Nazi propaganda.
I think a big element is the repeated humiliations of the surrounding countries in war with Israel, since 1948.
The governments of those countries used the perpetual state of war with Israel (and The! Jews!) as an explanation and excuse for dictatorship and even economic failures.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
The Israeli military and settlers left Gaza in 2005:
You could argue that Israel wasn't friendly but why should it be when Gaza was controlled by an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel.
Yet Israel still 'oppressed' Gaza by providing it with most of its electricity and by giving tens of thousands of work permits to Gazans.
Peace requires two sides - so when did Gaza make any moves towards peace ?
If you want a 'rules based international order' then outline how Hamas would be brought to justice and how Israel would be safeguarded from further attacks from Gaza.
Because if there aren't ways of doing those two things then Israel will justifiably assume the job is its to do.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
"The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression."
Rubbish.
Hamas want all of Palestine to be under *their* control (hence their rather odd way of dealing with political rivals from Fatah). That means no Israel. As far as they are concerned, the only way to stop the 'oppression' is for there to be no Israel. (*)
The best long-term strategy to deal with them? I don't think we can through any political means, without giving up Israel.
" Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. "
So did Israel, if you've forgotten.
" I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order."
Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. Was not the events of a month ago going against the "rules-based international order." ?
(*) Even then, I don't see Hamas giving up. They'll want to rule a unified Palestine. Because that's where the money and power is.
ETA the risk is going all DDA and inadvertently banning Spitting Image.
Indeed. When is a parody a fake and when is a fake a parody?
Even more fun - we have instances of third party materials (clips from films, computer games) used in fake news. What do we do there?
People are already posting video from Modern Warfare III as being from Ukraine or Gaza, and computer games are unlikely to become less realistic in future.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
Because Israel as a state are not an innocent party. They have themselves committed numerous crimes against the Palestinians and they are currently led by a Government that has actively worked against the peace process.
None of that justifies, excuses or even explains what Hamas did but it does mean that Israel does not get carte blanche to kill Palestinians without being challenged over it.
Moreover most of those being killed by Israel are not Hamas, they are innocent civilians.
As such there are clearly two sides to the argument and that is reflected in the debate going on in the UK.
It seems that Israel is held to a much higher standard when it comes to making sure that 'innocent parties' are not killed than other countries.
Other countries such as our own.
There wasn't much concern about 'innocent parties' when hundreds of thousands of Germans, or indeed tens of thousands of French, were killed by Allied bombing.
Or more recently when British drone attacks killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan and Syria.
The only difference being that we were meddling in other countries whereas Israel could justifiably say that its existence is threatened.
The events of WWII are a long time ago. There was disquiet about Allied bombing even at the time. Modern UK military doctrine would not support taking the same actions today.
There has been considerable concern expressed about British drone attacks and, ultimately, it was opposition to military involvement that stopped the idea of greater UK involvement in trying to topple Assad.
But, yes, I agree Israel is held to a different standard and reporting/public interest in Israel/Palestine is notably much higher than in, say, the ongoing conflict in Yemen not that far away. We have had music discussion of why that is here. Our closer connection to events, or to the history of how we got here, the relative ease of reporting, the echoes of Cold War tensions or colonial/colonised conflicts or anti-Semitism or Islamophobia — perhaps they all contribute. I wish the British public did pay more attention to, e.g., the ongoing Syrian civil war and the Yemeni conflict, although I have personal reasons why the Israel/Palestine situation is closer to home.
Hamas does not threaten Israel’s existence. There was zero doubt about who would come out as militarily superior in a war between Israel and Hamas, and Israel’s current progress through Gaza was entirely predictable.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
One theory is Arab antisemitism is a lingering effect of Nazi propaganda.
I think a big element is the repeated humiliations of the surrounding countries in war with Israel, since 1948.
The governments of those countries used the perpetual state of war with Israel (and The! Jews!) as an explanation and excuse for dictatorship and even economic failures.
The Hate was preached by The State…
Pre-1948 most of the Middle East was a European colony of one shade or another, and featured heavily in the second world war, but while there is an intellectual case that Britain should have honoured Lawrence's promises, or not made the Balfour declaration, there is not the same hatred of Britain, France, Germany or Italy. Therefore, I cannot see that losing wars explains anything, especially in countries uninvolved.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
One theory is Arab antisemitism is a lingering effect of Nazi propaganda.
I think a big element is the repeated humiliations of the surrounding countries in war with Israel, since 1948.
The governments of those countries used the perpetual state of war with Israel (and The! Jews!) as an explanation and excuse for dictatorship and even economic failures.
The Hate was preached by The State…
Pre-1948 most of the Middle East was a European colony of one shade or another, and featured heavily in the second world war, but while there is an intellectual case that Britain should have honoured Lawrence's promises, or not made the Balfour declaration, there is not the same hatred of Britain, France, Germany or Italy. Therefore, I cannot see that losing wars explains anything, especially in countries uninvolved.
You evidently don't see Iran's rather (ahem) interesting views on the UK then. "The Old Fox" and all that.
But no, the hatred isn't the same. Partly (mostly?) because the UK is not a Jewish state...
ETA the risk is going all DDA and inadvertently banning Spitting Image.
Should it be a criminal offence, to knowingly pass off a fake recording of a public figure as genuine?
Really interesting policy question.
Presumably if someone had tried to sell something using a deepfaked audio of Khan, they’d be guilty of fraud.
Would they? There would need to be either a test case at an appellate court, or specific legislation on the subject.
Joe Rogan says that he gets messages every day about the Facebook ads for male enhancement pills, that he knows nothing about and are totally fabricated. Because there’s thousands of hours of him in high quality audio and video, you can now use an AI to make him say anything.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
The Israeli military and settlers left Gaza in 2005:
You could argue that Israel wasn't friendly but why should it be when Gaza was controlled by an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel.
Yet Israel still 'oppressed' Gaza by providing it with most of its electricity and by giving tens of thousands of work permits to Gazans.
Peace requires two sides - so when did Gaza make any moves towards peace ?
If you want a 'rules based international order' then outline how Hamas would be brought to justice and how Israel would be safeguarded from further attacks from Gaza.
Because if there aren't ways of doing those two things then Israel will justifiably assume the job is its to do.
Gaza is part of Palestine and Israel has continued to build illegal settlements on the West Bank. Israel has blockaded Gaza since 2005. A blockade is a casus belli (or so Israel argued in 1967).
You keep referring, as I understand it, to Hamas’s charter, describing them as an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel. Hamas said in 2008 that they would accept the 1967 borders. They repudiated their original charter in 2010 and wrote a new, less radical charter in 2017. These were moves towards peace, although I wish they had done more on this front.
I, and others, have repeatedly offered a roadmap towards a long-term solution. I have repeatedly said that Israel is right to militarily respond to 7 Oct and that people in Hamas responsible for 7 Oct should, if possible, face war crimes charges. Israel also needs to stop building illegal settlements, stop its policies of annexing Palestinian land and commit to serious peace talks based on a 2-state solution.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
One theory is Arab antisemitism is a lingering effect of Nazi propaganda.
I think a big element is the repeated humiliations of the surrounding countries in war with Israel, since 1948.
The governments of those countries used the perpetual state of war with Israel (and The! Jews!) as an explanation and excuse for dictatorship and even economic failures.
The Hate was preached by The State…
Pre-1948 most of the Middle East was a European colony of one shade or another, and featured heavily in the second world war, but while there is an intellectual case that Britain should have honoured Lawrence's promises, or not made the Balfour declaration, there is not the same hatred of Britain, France, Germany or Italy. Therefore, I cannot see that losing wars explains anything, especially in countries uninvolved.
You evidently don't see Iran's rather (ahem) interesting views on the UK then. "The Old Fox" and all that.
But no, the hatred isn't the same. Partly (mostly?) because the UK is not a Jewish state...
Until you encountered the propaganda of how The Jewish Enemy (and their Western backers) are behind *Everything!* It may be hard to understand.
If you preach that as your excuse for everything, for decades….
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
"The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression."
Rubbish.
Hamas want all of Palestine to be under *their* control (hence their rather odd way of dealing with political rivals from Fatah). That means no Israel. As far as they are concerned, the only way to stop the 'oppression' is for there to be no Israel. (*)
The best long-term strategy to deal with them? I don't think we can through any political means, without giving up Israel.
" Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. "
So did Israel, if you've forgotten.
" I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order."
Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. Was not the events of a month ago going against the "rules-based international order." ?
(*) Even then, I don't see Hamas giving up. They'll want to rule a unified Palestine. Because that's where the money and power is.
The IRA wanted all of Northern Ireland to be under their control. A peace was reached where the IRA didn’t get everything they wanted, but where oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland was ceased. Hamas have repeatedly said they would accept a 2-state solution on the 1967 borders. As with Northern Ireland, a solution is possible where neither side gets everything the want.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
Their oppression of the Palestinians could have something to do with it. That's my point - if they stopped that we could test your theory. We'd have a cleaner backdrop.
Update - the boat has sunk and there's just a rubber dinghy there, hopefully with the crew
Oh dear. Hope everyone got off safely.
I spoke to the coastguard; what I thought was their dinghy was actually the Sandown inflatable lifeboat, three miles offshore. All safe and sound. Luckily the calmest day out there for weeks; wouldn't have fancied their chances yesterday. ..
Good on you for making the call.
So many times, everyone assumes that someone else must have made the call. When I was a road warrior in the UK, I regularly stopped and called in things on the motorway phones.
It was a motor boat, probably being used for a fishing trip. This close up video taken by one of the rescuing lifeboats shows how bad the fire was:
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
Because Israel as a state are not an innocent party. They have themselves committed numerous crimes against the Palestinians and they are currently led by a Government that has actively worked against the peace process.
None of that justifies, excuses or even explains what Hamas did but it does mean that Israel does not get carte blanche to kill Palestinians without being challenged over it.
Moreover most of those being killed by Israel are not Hamas, they are innocent civilians.
As such there are clearly two sides to the argument and that is reflected in the debate going on in the UK.
It seems that Israel is held to a much higher standard when it comes to making sure that 'innocent parties' are not killed than other countries.
Other countries such as our own.
There wasn't much concern about 'innocent parties' when hundreds of thousands of Germans, or indeed tens of thousands of French, were killed by Allied bombing.
Or more recently when British drone attacks killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan and Syria.
The only difference being that we were meddling in other countries whereas Israel could justifiably say that its existence is threatened.
Though hasn't international law progressed since 1945, and what was our bomber campaign would now be a warcrime?
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
somebody probably said something they did not like 2000 years ago
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
"The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression."
Rubbish.
Hamas want all of Palestine to be under *their* control (hence their rather odd way of dealing with political rivals from Fatah). That means no Israel. As far as they are concerned, the only way to stop the 'oppression' is for there to be no Israel. (*)
The best long-term strategy to deal with them? I don't think we can through any political means, without giving up Israel.
" Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. "
So did Israel, if you've forgotten.
" I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order."
Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. Was not the events of a month ago going against the "rules-based international order." ?
(*) Even then, I don't see Hamas giving up. They'll want to rule a unified Palestine. Because that's where the money and power is.
The IRA wanted all of Northern Ireland to be under their control. A peace was reached where the IRA didn’t get everything they wanted, but where oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland was ceased. Hamas have repeatedly said they would accept a 2-state solution on the 1967 borders. As with Northern Ireland, a solution is possible where neither side gets everything the want.
Hmmmm.
I think that's an optimistic interpretation of what they say:
Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
That's not *really* saying 'they would accept a two state solution on the 1967 borders.' Rather, it"s that they understand it's what the Palestinian people would accept so they're willing to accept it as a staging post.
Particularly when taken in conjunction with Article 22:
Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.
Or 27;
A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Or indeed articles 2-4;
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.
The Palestinian people 4. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian.
Comments
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sadiq-khan-deepfake-audio-not-crime-met-police/
Legislation urgently needed.
ETA the risk is going all DDA and inadvertently banning Spitting Image.
The governments of those countries used the perpetual state of war with Israel (and The! Jews!) as an explanation and excuse for dictatorship and even economic failures.
The Hate was preached by The State…
Really interesting policy question.
Even more fun - we have instances of third party materials (clips from films, computer games) used in fake news. What do we do there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
So what oppression was there ?
You could argue that Israel wasn't friendly but why should it be when Gaza was controlled by an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel.
Yet Israel still 'oppressed' Gaza by providing it with most of its electricity and by giving tens of thousands of work permits to Gazans.
Peace requires two sides - so when did Gaza make any moves towards peace ?
If you want a 'rules based international order' then outline how Hamas would be brought to justice and how Israel would be safeguarded from further attacks from Gaza.
Because if there aren't ways of doing those two things then Israel will justifiably assume the job is its to do.
Rubbish.
Hamas want all of Palestine to be under *their* control (hence their rather odd way of dealing with political rivals from Fatah). That means no Israel. As far as they are concerned, the only way to stop the 'oppression' is for there to be no Israel. (*)
The best long-term strategy to deal with them? I don't think we can through any political means, without giving up Israel.
" Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. "
So did Israel, if you've forgotten.
" I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order."
Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. Was not the events of a month ago going against the "rules-based international order." ?
(*) Even then, I don't see Hamas giving up. They'll want to rule a unified Palestine. Because that's where the money and power is.
There has been considerable concern expressed about British drone attacks and, ultimately, it was opposition to military involvement that stopped the idea of greater UK involvement in trying to topple Assad.
But, yes, I agree Israel is held to a different standard and reporting/public interest in Israel/Palestine is notably much higher than in, say, the ongoing conflict in Yemen not that far away. We have had music discussion of why that is here. Our closer connection to events, or to the history of how we got here, the relative ease of reporting, the echoes of Cold War tensions or colonial/colonised conflicts or anti-Semitism or Islamophobia — perhaps they all contribute. I wish the British public did pay more attention to, e.g., the ongoing Syrian civil war and the Yemeni conflict, although I have personal reasons why the Israel/Palestine situation is closer to home.
Hamas does not threaten Israel’s existence. There was zero doubt about who would come out as militarily superior in a war between Israel and Hamas, and Israel’s current progress through Gaza was entirely predictable.
But no, the hatred isn't the same. Partly (mostly?) because the UK is not a Jewish state...
Joe Rogan says that he gets messages every day about the Facebook ads for male enhancement pills, that he knows nothing about and are totally fabricated. Because there’s thousands of hours of him in high quality audio and video, you can now use an AI to make him say anything.
You keep referring, as I understand it, to Hamas’s charter, describing them as an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel. Hamas said in 2008 that they would accept the 1967 borders. They repudiated their original charter in 2010 and wrote a new, less radical charter in 2017. These were moves towards peace, although I wish they had done more on this front.
I, and others, have repeatedly offered a roadmap towards a long-term solution. I have repeatedly said that Israel is right to militarily respond to 7 Oct and that people in Hamas responsible for 7 Oct should, if possible, face war crimes charges. Israel also needs to stop building illegal settlements, stop its policies of annexing Palestinian land and commit to serious peace talks based on a 2-state solution.
If you preach that as your excuse for everything, for decades….
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=272027908662945
I think that's an optimistic interpretation of what they say:
Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
That's not *really* saying 'they would accept a two state solution on the 1967 borders.' Rather, it"s that they understand it's what the Palestinian people would accept so they're willing to accept it as a staging post.
Particularly when taken in conjunction with Article 22:
Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.
Or 27;
A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Or indeed articles 2-4;
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.
The Palestinian people
4. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian.