@mousethief You say "The imposition of the State of Israel on the Palestinian lands was itself a terrorist attack, ongoing to this day.
Are you suggesting that the UN vote of 1947 was illegitimate?
Yes. Very much so.
And I repeat: Where were the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah meant to go?
Non sequitur. This doesn't justify the injustices visited upon the Palestinian peoples in 1948 and 1967. You're basically saying "They had noplace to go, so it was okay to displace all these other people from their grandparents' land and give it to the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah. Because, heck, they didn't have anywhere else to go, now did they?"
Also, terror bombing of Gaza is a recruiting sergeant for more militants/terrorists. I remember when internment was brought in in N. Ireland, and it was said that people were queuing up in the street to join the Provisionals. I suppose you can avoid that by dispersing the population, or can you?
Warnings in the press that Iran has got an itchy trigger finger. I've always been sceptical about this, as they could not risk war with the US. Of course, they have their proxies, esp., Hezbollah. And possibly, they gave the green light to Hamas, sensing weakness in Israel over recent hard right policies, and trying to stop the Saudi rapprochement with Israel. Who knows?
Re the Palestinian civilians supposedly not trying hard enough to get rid of Hamas, it seems to me that they're in an awful bind. I don't suppose Hamas thinks very kindly of people who talk to the Israeli authorities. Most of Gaza are women and children and they're locked in with Hamas.
Like living in northern Ireland during the Troubles - the British cops interning you if you won't testify against your neighbor the IRA man, and your neighbor's pals standing around with Armalites saying "well, you know what happens to people who talk". And in theory the Irish were allowed to leave, if they had the money and someplace to go.
Warnings in the press that Iran has got an itchy trigger finger. I've always been sceptical about this, as they could not risk war with the US. Of course, they have their proxies, esp., Hezbollah. And possibly, they gave the green light to Hamas, sensing weakness in Israel over recent hard right policies, and trying to stop the Saudi rapprochement with Israel. Who knows?
Yes, there is an opinion piece by Simon Tisdall in today's Guardian about this very fear:
@mousethief You say "The imposition of the State of Israel on the Palestinian lands was itself a terrorist attack, ongoing to this day.
Are you suggesting that the UN vote of 1947 was illegitimate?
Yes. Very much so.
And I repeat: Where were the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah meant to go?
Non sequitur. This doesn't justify the injustices visited upon the Palestinian peoples in 1948 and 1967. You're basically saying "They had noplace to go, so it was okay to displace all these other people from their grandparents' land and give it to the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah. Because, heck, they didn't have anywhere else to go, now did they?"
Not a non sequitur but a genuine question: at the time there were over 56,000 displaced Jews in camps in Cyprus and more in camps in southern France.
There were no "Palestinians" in 1948, the people who lived in the Mandate were seen as either Jews, Druze or Arabs. There has never, until it became politically expedient, been a recognised "Palestinian people".
Their grandparents' land was still largely owned by absentee Turkish (ex-Ottoman) or Egyptian landlords and they sold a lot of it to incoming settlers, something that had been going on for at least the previous 70+ years. Land was not acquired or grabbed for incoming survivors, they were accommodated in existing kibbutzim or moshavs: those settlements for unaccompanied child refugees were of necessity on land already owned by settlers so there were adults nearby to provide educational and other services.
Heck yes, they didn't have anywhere else to go. You name me one country which was prepared to accept migrants with literally nothing, no economic resources whatever. Even in 1945 the British government, for example, demanded that every single Jewish man, woman and child survivor brought in have sponsorship and the same is true of the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc.
@mousethief You say "The imposition of the State of Israel on the Palestinian lands was itself a terrorist attack, ongoing to this day.
Are you suggesting that the UN vote of 1947 was illegitimate?
Yes. Very much so.
And I repeat: Where were the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah meant to go?
Non sequitur. This doesn't justify the injustices visited upon the Palestinian peoples in 1948 and 1967. You're basically saying "They had noplace to go, so it was okay to displace all these other people from their grandparents' land and give it to the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah. Because, heck, they didn't have anywhere else to go, now did they?"
Not a non sequitur but a genuine question: at the time there were over 56,000 displaced Jews in camps in Cyprus and more in camps in southern France.
There were no "Palestinians" in 1948, the people who lived in the Mandate were seen as either Jews, Druze or Arabs. There has never, until it became politically expedient, been a recognised "Palestinian people".
There weren't any Israelis in 1947. The term "Palestinian" was in use a century before then, to describe the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. Arguing over when a people in a place become a nation is academic when it's clear that there was a desire for self-government dating back to at least the Mandate and arguably into the Ottoman period. Claiming that Palestinians didn't exist so it was ok for Jews to colonise Palestine is a bit like justifying Rhodesia by saying there wasn't a Zimbabwean people in 1965.
In modern times, the first person to self-describe Palestine's Arabs as "Palestinians" was Khalil Beidas in 1898, followed by Salim Quba'in and Najib Nassar in 1902. After the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, which eased press censorship laws in the Ottoman Empire, dozens of newspapers and periodicals were founded in Palestine, and the term "Palestinian" expanded in usage. Among those were the Al-Quds, Al-Munadi, Falastin, Al-Karmil and Al-Nafir newspapers, which used the term "Filastini" more than 170 times in 110 articles from 1908 to 1914. They also made references to a "Palestinian society", "Palestinian nation", and a "Palestinian diaspora". Article writers included Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians, Palestinian emigrants, and non-Palestinian Arabs.
Arguing about what two colonial empires that no longer exist should have done - is a bit pointless. Israel exists. That the modern state was founded in the way it was is unfixable, the formation of most modern states is a clusterfuck.
But one of the reasons people want a Palestinian state is because they are treated as second class citizens in a theocratic state. That is not an inevitable consequence of Israel’s existence, it is a choice. As is the continued occupation.
There were no "Palestinians" in 1948, the people who lived in the Mandate were seen as either Jews, Druze or Arabs. There has never, until it became politically expedient, been a recognised "Palestinian people".
Many nationalisms are a product of the 19th and 20th centuries, nevertheless that doesn't mean that there weren't people living in those areas with distinct cultures of their own. Nor are all Arabs a kind of undifferentiated mass just because they (mostly) speak dialects of the same language.
I believe Egypt has opened up its border crossing by now. At least CNN reported they were going to open it up last night.
Egypt has a history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. I think that is the reason why Egypt was hesitant to open its border.
Last night a six-year-old boy and his mother were stabbed by their landlord in Chicago because the landlord thought they were Muslim, not sure if they were Palestinian. The boy died;
The thought is there will be lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers.
There were no "Palestinians" in 1948, the people who lived in the Mandate were seen as either Jews, Druze or Arabs. There has never, until it became politically expedient, been a recognised "Palestinian people".
Many nationalisms are a product of the 19th and 20th centuries, nevertheless that doesn't mean that there weren't people living in those areas with distinct cultures of their own. Nor are all Arabs a kind of undifferentiated mass just because they (mostly) speak dialects of the same language.
Even then I seem to recall that the various Arabics are dialects of Classical Arabic in roughly the same way the Romance languages are dialects of Latin.
I believe Egypt has opened up its border crossing by now. At least CNN reported they were going to open it up last night.
Egypt has a history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. I think that is the reason why Egypt was hesitant to open its border.
Last night a six-year-old boy and his mother were stabbed by their landlord in Chicago because the landlord thought they were Muslim, not sure if they were Palestinian. The boy died;
The thought is there will be lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers.
I pray that will not happen.
Latest news here (4.30pm in the UK) is that the Rafah crossing is still closed. AIUI, Mr Blinken was hoping to persuade Egypt to open it to allow aid agencies into Gaza, and foreign national passport-holders out, which would be at least a start...
As to the murder in Chicago, Mr Biden has said he is *shocked and sickened* by it, and so surely is anyone with an ounce of humanity left in them...
Last night a six-year-old boy and his mother were stabbed by their landlord in Chicago because the landlord thought they were Muslim, not sure if they were Palestinian. The boy died;
The thought is there will be lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers.
They were Palestinian. I'm not sure how you leap from "child murdered for being Palestinian" i.e. almost certainly stochastic terrorism from Israel's cheerleaders to "lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers".
Shootings in Brussels this evening. Gunman still at large.
Meanwhile, there was an explosion near the still-closed crossing at Rafah. Not many details as far as I can see.
A few questions and comments now from comments made upthread.
Firstly, whatever the ins and outs of 1947 and '48, we are where we are now and all peace initiatives in the intervening time have failed. What is the solution?
One for @Sojourner. I've heard the suggestion that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust should have been settled in Australia. As far as I'm aware, that wasn't mooted at the time and has only been suggested in retrospect. Was it a feasible option in the immediate post-War period and why Australia - other than there's plenty of space?
One presumes that European Jews would have been accepted under the White Australia Policy, but was it ever an option? How would it sound if someone suggested that Palestinians should be settled in the Australian desert?
Lone Wolf attacks can happen by radicals on both sides.
Tonight, Secretary Blinken has announced Biden will be going to Israel on Wednesday. Word is he has reached an agreement with Netanyahu on a humanitarian aid package for both the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza.
Gotta say, I don't see what was antisemitic about that Guardian cartoon that just got Steve Bell fired.
Netanyahu cutting into himself with a scalpel and a scar that looks like Gaza? I think common-sense would deem this to be saying that his policies in Gaza are a self-inflicted wound.
But I gather some people are alleging it's an allusion to "a pound of flesh"? Doesn't really add up, given that Netanyahu is shown cutting himself, not some rival person or institution.
And it explicitly says "AFTER DAVID LEVINE", a pretty clear indication that it's the famous cartoon of Lyndon Johnson with the Vietnam-scar in his chest, which in turn referenced the real-life photo of Johnson showing his scar to reporters.
(Though I do think that's a bit of a shoehorn on Bell's part, since the two cartoons don't resemble each other in any other way, and the situations don't really line up, given that Netanyahu has no history of showing surgical scars to the media. Nevertheless, seems likely that's what Bell intended.)
I wonder if the words AFTER DAVID LEVINE contributed to some people's perception of the cartoon as anti-Jewish? Maybe they thought "David Levine" was some stereotypically evil Jewish figure, and Bell was saying that Netanyahu is behaving like him.
Yes, I stared at the cartoon for ages, and couldn't see the problem. A reference to Shylock? I think the Grauniad is shifting, and it ain't to the left.
I don't see anything anti-semitic about it, even if there is a sideways reference to Shakespeare. BN has been contributing to the febrile atmosphere between Israel and its neighbours for his entire political career and much of the responsibility for not just the current state of Israeli politics but the lack of preparedness of the IDF lies at his door.
Yes, I stared at the cartoon for ages, and couldn't see the problem. A reference to Shylock? I think the Grauniad is shifting, and it ain't to the left.
My guess is it might have been a panicked analysis and response.
"Oh shit. A Jewish guy shown as a doctor cutting flesh with the name 'David Levine' written into the cartoon? People are saying this is antisemitic, not sure how exactly, but let's throw Bell outta here lickety-split, just to be on the safe side."
It's not the first time Bell has been caught by tenuous accusations of anti-semitism. Nor is it the first time he's been on the hook for something that presumably went past numerous editors (with recent history of playing Witchfinder General with left wing anti-semitism) prior to publication without remark.
KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel bombed areas of southern Gaza where it had told Palestinians to flee to ahead of an expected ground invasion, killing dozens of people on Tuesday in attacks it says are targeted at Hamas militants that rule the besieged territory.
I don't know what is true or not now, but there seems to be reports from reliable sources that the Israeli military is shelling the places it told hundreds of thousands of people to relocate to. In one of the most crowded places in the world.
KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel bombed areas of southern Gaza where it had told Palestinians to flee to ahead of an expected ground invasion, killing dozens of people on Tuesday in attacks it says are targeted at Hamas militants that rule the besieged territory.
I don't know what is true or not now, but there seems to be reports from reliable sources that the Israeli military is shelling the places it told hundreds of thousands of people to relocate to. In one of the most crowded places in the world.
Hamas are bad enough, but Netanyahu seems to be trying to out-Herod Herod...
Maybe in the future (if there is one) the names of Hamas and Netanyahu will stink as much as Herod's has done - not that that will help the maimed and dead civilians sacrificed in those names...
I'm sure these will be declared to be unintentional. Something will be added about human shields and terrorists embedded in the civilian population.
The questions about how many innocent people it's acceptable to kill to get one enemy combatant will be unanswered. Because the answer is "as many as it takes".
FWIW, I was equally appalled and critical of the UK/US actions Iraq which also caused massive civilian casualties. I paid for it too, called on these very boards a "clueless pacifist" and "naive armchair critic".
Tell me who's out there killing people - clueless pacifists? Naive armchair critics?
Fuck it; I can recognise a massive human tragedy when I see one. There was one the weekend before last. There's another now.
Hamas are bad enough, but Netanyahu seems to be trying to out-Herod Herod...
In Herod's defence the slaughter he ordered was geographically targeted and demographically restricted to only that group that could reasonably be the threat to him.
If people want to discuss Steve Bell please start a new thread, and if antisemitism is to be discussed please centre Jewish voices from the outset. It's not for people who are not Jewish to tell Jewish people living in societies with antisemitic pasts and presents how to experience any given cartoon.
Please note the Spectator piece that was posted is not ' own voice' and has a wider agenda which affects other minorities and their portrayal.
Sorry to double post. Herod imagery has a strong connection to classic Christian antisemitism so it would be really great if we could stop the Herod comparisons please.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
The Israeli military are now saying that explosion(s) in Gaza's hospitals were caused by Hamas munitions.
Just a personal anecdote but I once spent a long evening in the West Bank defending the truth of the Holocaust with a group of Palestinian men. They really didn't seem to believe it happened.
Abu Mazen (I'm getting old and can't remember his real name off-hand) supposedly wrote a very tortuous PhD thesis whilst studying in Moscow - which I've not read but I understand is particularly unpleasant and full of anti-Holocaust tropes.
If people want to discuss Steve Bell please start a new thread, and if antisemitism is to be discussed please centre Jewish voices from the outset. It's not for people who are not Jewish to tell Jewish people living in societies with antisemitic pasts and presents how to experience any given cartoon.
Please note the Spectator piece that was posted is not ' own voice' and has a wider agenda which affects other minorities and their portrayal.
Sorry to double post. Herod imagery has a strong connection to classic Christian antisemitism so it would be really great if we could stop the Herod comparisons please.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Noted on both counts - apologies for mentioning these issues. I'd best make no further attempt to contribute to this thread, but will follow it with interest.
I suppose my take is, 'Yes, there are Palestinian Holocaust deniers and yes there are Islamist militants who'd commit genocide against the Jews (and any one else for that matter they disagreed with) given half the chance.'
Equally, 'Netanyahu has made a bad situation even worse.'
As Auden wrote (quoting from memory) 'I and the public know/ What all the children learn / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.'
I keep coming back to 'What's the solution?'
We can't deport one group or another to Australia. Somehow all the people's of the region have to learn to co-exist peacefully. Holocaust denial doesn't help that, nor does considering Arabic people 'animals' or second-class citizens.
Geo-political manoeuvring whether from the USA, Iran or anywhere else doesn't help either but where do we even start with any of that?
I'm absolutely gutted to learn that it is Ahli Hospital that was bombed today. Al-Ahli is one of 5 (I think) hospitals run by the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem (the diocese runs several hospitals and schools in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan). They've done amazing work on a shoestring budget for years, and taken in anyone regardless of religion, nationality, or ability to pay. I'm not going to speculate at this point about who did what. I'm just terribly sad.
I suppose my take is, 'Yes, there are Palestinian Holocaust deniers and yes there are Islamist militants who'd commit genocide against the Jews (and any one else for that matter they disagreed with) given half the chance.'
Equally, 'Netanyahu has made a bad situation even worse.'
As Auden wrote (quoting from memory) 'I and the public know/ What all the children learn / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.'
I keep coming back to 'What's the solution?'
We can't deport one group or another to Australia. Somehow all the people's of the region have to learn to co-exist peacefully. Holocaust denial doesn't help that, nor does considering Arabic people 'animals' or second-class citizens.
Geo-political manoeuvring whether from the USA, Iran or anywhere else doesn't help either but where do we even start with any of that?
Comments
Yes. Very much so.
Non sequitur. This doesn't justify the injustices visited upon the Palestinian peoples in 1948 and 1967. You're basically saying "They had noplace to go, so it was okay to displace all these other people from their grandparents' land and give it to the displaced Jewish survivors of the Shoah. Because, heck, they didn't have anywhere else to go, now did they?"
Like living in northern Ireland during the Troubles - the British cops interning you if you won't testify against your neighbor the IRA man, and your neighbor's pals standing around with Armalites saying "well, you know what happens to people who talk". And in theory the Irish were allowed to leave, if they had the money and someplace to go.
Yes, there is an opinion piece by Simon Tisdall in today's Guardian about this very fear:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/israel-invades-iran-intervenes-war-global
Who knows? indeed...
One can only hope for restraint on the part of the US and of Iran, and on the part of Israel as well.
Not a non sequitur but a genuine question: at the time there were over 56,000 displaced Jews in camps in Cyprus and more in camps in southern France.
There were no "Palestinians" in 1948, the people who lived in the Mandate were seen as either Jews, Druze or Arabs. There has never, until it became politically expedient, been a recognised "Palestinian people".
Their grandparents' land was still largely owned by absentee Turkish (ex-Ottoman) or Egyptian landlords and they sold a lot of it to incoming settlers, something that had been going on for at least the previous 70+ years. Land was not acquired or grabbed for incoming survivors, they were accommodated in existing kibbutzim or moshavs: those settlements for unaccompanied child refugees were of necessity on land already owned by settlers so there were adults nearby to provide educational and other services.
Heck yes, they didn't have anywhere else to go. You name me one country which was prepared to accept migrants with literally nothing, no economic resources whatever. Even in 1945 the British government, for example, demanded that every single Jewish man, woman and child survivor brought in have sponsorship and the same is true of the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc.
There weren't any Israelis in 1947. The term "Palestinian" was in use a century before then, to describe the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. Arguing over when a people in a place become a nation is academic when it's clear that there was a desire for self-government dating back to at least the Mandate and arguably into the Ottoman period. Claiming that Palestinians didn't exist so it was ok for Jews to colonise Palestine is a bit like justifying Rhodesia by saying there wasn't a Zimbabwean people in 1965.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians:
But one of the reasons people want a Palestinian state is because they are treated as second class citizens in a theocratic state. That is not an inevitable consequence of Israel’s existence, it is a choice. As is the continued occupation.
Many nationalisms are a product of the 19th and 20th centuries, nevertheless that doesn't mean that there weren't people living in those areas with distinct cultures of their own. Nor are all Arabs a kind of undifferentiated mass just because they (mostly) speak dialects of the same language.
Egypt has a history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. I think that is the reason why Egypt was hesitant to open its border.
Last night a six-year-old boy and his mother were stabbed by their landlord in Chicago because the landlord thought they were Muslim, not sure if they were Palestinian. The boy died;
The thought is there will be lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers.
I pray that will not happen.
Even then I seem to recall that the various Arabics are dialects of Classical Arabic in roughly the same way the Romance languages are dialects of Latin.
Latest news here (4.30pm in the UK) is that the Rafah crossing is still closed. AIUI, Mr Blinken was hoping to persuade Egypt to open it to allow aid agencies into Gaza, and foreign national passport-holders out, which would be at least a start...
As to the murder in Chicago, Mr Biden has said he is *shocked and sickened* by it, and so surely is anyone with an ounce of humanity left in them...
They were Palestinian. I'm not sure how you leap from "child murdered for being Palestinian" i.e. almost certainly stochastic terrorism from Israel's cheerleaders to "lone wolf attacks world wide by Hamas followers".
How would bombing Cambodia improve the situation?
Sadly I don't think that'll work, but it is a brave thing to offer.
Meanwhile, there was an explosion near the still-closed crossing at Rafah. Not many details as far as I can see.
A few questions and comments now from comments made upthread.
Firstly, whatever the ins and outs of 1947 and '48, we are where we are now and all peace initiatives in the intervening time have failed. What is the solution?
One for @Sojourner. I've heard the suggestion that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust should have been settled in Australia. As far as I'm aware, that wasn't mooted at the time and has only been suggested in retrospect. Was it a feasible option in the immediate post-War period and why Australia - other than there's plenty of space?
One presumes that European Jews would have been accepted under the White Australia Policy, but was it ever an option? How would it sound if someone suggested that Palestinians should be settled in the Australian desert?
Or anyone else for that matter.
One for @The Organist. What's your solution?
Tonight, Secretary Blinken has announced Biden will be going to Israel on Wednesday. Word is he has reached an agreement with Netanyahu on a humanitarian aid package for both the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza.
We will see.
Netanyahu cutting into himself with a scalpel and a scar that looks like Gaza? I think common-sense would deem this to be saying that his policies in Gaza are a self-inflicted wound.
But I gather some people are alleging it's an allusion to "a pound of flesh"? Doesn't really add up, given that Netanyahu is shown cutting himself, not some rival person or institution.
And it explicitly says "AFTER DAVID LEVINE", a pretty clear indication that it's the famous cartoon of Lyndon Johnson with the Vietnam-scar in his chest, which in turn referenced the real-life photo of Johnson showing his scar to reporters.
(Though I do think that's a bit of a shoehorn on Bell's part, since the two cartoons don't resemble each other in any other way, and the situations don't really line up, given that Netanyahu has no history of showing surgical scars to the media. Nevertheless, seems likely that's what Bell intended.)
My guess is it might have been a panicked analysis and response.
"Oh shit. A Jewish guy shown as a doctor cutting flesh with the name 'David Levine' written into the cartoon? People are saying this is antisemitic, not sure how exactly, but let's throw Bell outta here lickety-split, just to be on the safe side."
I assume Bell was paraphrasing, but still, probably gives you an idea what the criticism was. And, yeah, it's pretty much bullshit.
I don't know what is true or not now, but there seems to be reports from reliable sources that the Israeli military is shelling the places it told hundreds of thousands of people to relocate to. In one of the most crowded places in the world.
Here's the link: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c
Of course, Shylock wasn't demanding a pound of his own flesh. Oh, what's the use. They are sniffing out AS, whether it's there or not.
When a baffled reporter said that doctors had been talking about tremendous problems, he started talking about Hamas and how it wasn't his problem.
Confirmed by the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67133803
Of course any civilian casualties are a matter of deep regret- Leon Rosselson, The Third Intifada
What's this war against the children? Against the women too? What's this war against the refugee? What's it do to you? - Garth Hewitt, Song for Miriam
It never changes. This is how it's been for decades.
Bloody Hell - horsemen of the apocalypse must be on the horizon when the Spectator defends a left-win cartoonist against anti-Semitism allegations...
Having said that (and having read it) I might have guessed their slant.
Personally I'd be offended by being defended by an article comparing me with Suzanne Moore, but YMMV etc.
Maybe in the future (if there is one) the names of Hamas and Netanyahu will stink as much as Herod's has done - not that that will help the maimed and dead civilians sacrificed in those names...
The questions about how many innocent people it's acceptable to kill to get one enemy combatant will be unanswered. Because the answer is "as many as it takes".
FWIW, I was equally appalled and critical of the UK/US actions Iraq which also caused massive civilian casualties. I paid for it too, called on these very boards a "clueless pacifist" and "naive armchair critic".
Tell me who's out there killing people - clueless pacifists? Naive armchair critics?
Fuck it; I can recognise a massive human tragedy when I see one. There was one the weekend before last. There's another now.
It never changes.
In Herod's defence the slaughter he ordered was geographically targeted and demographically restricted to only that group that could reasonably be the threat to him.
Please note the Spectator piece that was posted is not ' own voice' and has a wider agenda which affects other minorities and their portrayal.
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Of course, the Israelis say they are investigating.
Maybe the hospital was hit by a Hamas rocket that misfired.
But I doubt it. It was a pretty big explosion.
Has Israel jumped the shark on this one?
Biden might want to turn his plane around.
Just a personal anecdote but I once spent a long evening in the West Bank defending the truth of the Holocaust with a group of Palestinian men. They really didn't seem to believe it happened.
Abu Mazen (I'm getting old and can't remember his real name off-hand) supposedly wrote a very tortuous PhD thesis whilst studying in Moscow - which I've not read but I understand is particularly unpleasant and full of anti-Holocaust tropes.
Edit: Abbas of course. This article mentions the thesis: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/17/palestinian-game-of-thrones-what-happens-when-mahmoud-abbas-leaves-office
Noted on both counts - apologies for mentioning these issues. I'd best make no further attempt to contribute to this thread, but will follow it with interest.
Equally, 'Netanyahu has made a bad situation even worse.'
As Auden wrote (quoting from memory) 'I and the public know/ What all the children learn / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.'
I keep coming back to 'What's the solution?'
We can't deport one group or another to Australia. Somehow all the people's of the region have to learn to co-exist peacefully. Holocaust denial doesn't help that, nor does considering Arabic people 'animals' or second-class citizens.
Geo-political manoeuvring whether from the USA, Iran or anywhere else doesn't help either but where do we even start with any of that?
Any Jewish person or group who criticises Israel will very rapidly find themselves “controversial” in the eyes of the Zionist establishment.
Gamma G:
Why even suggest deportation to Oz?
Are you sure you don’t mean Antarctica?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
I've also heard people suggest that displaced European Jews should have been sent to Australia after WW2.
Which sounds just as unfeasible as a suggestion that displaced Palestinians should have been sent there in 1948.
Why am I not surprised?
The only way to settle the counter claims is to have an impartial investigative team look at the site.