I'm getting pretty tired of the chucklefucks on X saying it can't be genocide if there are still lots of Palestinians, or that it can't be genocide unless the Israeli government say they're intending killing Palestinians.
I think they plan to clear Palestine so their settlers can take it over.
Yes, quite likely, if Putin can do it, why not us. But also the govt allowed big lapses in security, so that Hamas could break through the border. No doubt many Israelis are furious about this, but if the military can keep up the killing at a steady rate for a period, the govt might hope to cover up their errors. But then none of it is predictable.
I think they plan to clear Palestine so their settlers can take it over.
I've been thinking that all along. Once they're gone, they can't argue. No escape by land as the border crossings are closed, no escape by sea because of a blockade, no escape by air. How can governments stand by and not call at least for a ceasefire?
Tbh once you've been to one protest, you've been to most of them. You march for a bit then stand there in a state of indignation with everybody else in the crowd, try to hear what speakers are saying and often don't, then go home again. I've done a small number in my lifetime (poll tax and Brexit) and watched various ones passing by, more by accident than intention, and they're all much of a muchness really. Except when they get rough, and I don't want to be caught up in one when it does. They're a demonstration of passionate feeling and frustration with the status quo that doesn't actually change anything for the better most of the time.
I've added the list as much for the benefit of those who want to go to one or to a vigil as much as for those who might want to know where to avoid being at that time.
Hello,
Please don't link to any organisations calling for or publicising protests or demos as it's a form of advertising/campaigning and could land the Ship in legal problems.
I think they plan to clear Palestine so their settlers can take it over.
Gaza is overpopulated. I would like to see all Israeli settlers in the West Bank returned to Israel proper and their homes allocated to the homeless from Gaza
O yes - I just thought that perhaps overpopulated might suggest that some people, at any rate, could be superfluous, but, as I said, I'm sure Telford didn't mean it that way.
Well, the local stuff is kicking off. Liverpool St Station in London was full of demonstrators doing a sit-in in the rush hour this evening, and it's only Tuesday.
By the time governments get round to doing anything (if), it'll all be over: the remaining Palestinians will be the ones in the diaspora, and there won't be a homeland for them to go back to because it will have been taken over. I really wonder what the point of the UN resolutions for ceasefires is, other than to take a moral stance, when the main players seem to take no notice. They don't seem to be much more use in that respect than the League of Nations was.
Some of the rhetoric makes me suspect they want millions of Palestinian dead.
Some of the Hamas rhetoric and their actions on October 7th appears to want millions of Jewish dead.
There's a vicious spiral of mutual annihilation - or the desire for it - going on and until that cycle is broken somehow it will continue.
The Israeli focus appears to be on the north of the Gaza Strip, presumably because that's where the bulk of the tunnels and Hamas command centres are. Even if it were possible for all non-combatants to move south as Israel requests and if Israel weren't also bombarding the southern part of Gaza, I do wonder what Israel's longer term goal is.
An Israeli spokesman on BBC2's 'Newsnight' said that Israel was fighting this war on behalf of 'all free countries', on behalf of all of us, because Hamas are worse than the Nazis.
So they are doing everyone a favour by destroying Hamas.
Where does it end? Just suppose by some fluke the IDF were able to root out and kill every single Hamas fighter without harming any non-combatants in the process and by some unfeasibly successful feat of arms they were able to do that tomorrow ... would that be an end of it?
No, of course not. There are already thousands of Palestinians who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods who would be only too willing to take revenge. And on and on and round and round it will go.
Someone I know who has contacts in Gaza was telling me how the medics there were doing extraordinary work as it was, even before this latest conflict, with the minimum of resources, supplies and equipment. Those same medics are dealing with horrific injuries, traumatised relatives and grieving families and trying to allow the dying to die with whatever dignity they can provide.
And all the while under constant Israeli bombardment.
It's no justification of Hamas nor an indication of anti-Semitism to salute their efforts and call for this whole thing to stop. That isn't to let Hamas off the hook. Nor is it to deny Israel its right to defend itself. But we are seeing civilian casualties within a short period on a scale I don't think I can remember in any conflict in my lifetime. We are also seeing potential and attempted pogroms in Dagestan and antisemitic attacks around the world.
Keir Starmer has told his Party that a ceasefire now would prolong the conflict later on. I'm no military expert - neither is Starmer - but I'd have thought the longer it goes on the worse the human tragedy becomes.
I'm not sure how Israel can 'finish the job' - whatever that entails - without inflicting more and more civilian casualties and heaping up even greater levels of resentment than already exist.
Perhaps the logic is that this resentment and anger already exists so killing thousands more people isn't going to make that much difference.
However 'surgical' the IDF claims to be it's not going to avoid civilian casualties. Equally, as defence analysts are warning, flattening vast areas of Gaza are going to make it harder to secure on the ground. The Allies found that at Caen in the weeks after D-Day.
What does that tell you about what they previously perceived the threat from Hamas to be?
Since everyone is fond of Hamas' rhetoric, let's take a look at the other side, from the founding platform of Likud:
The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
Note that part about 'the Sea and the Jordan'; which codifies a debate which had long been had within Revisionist Zionism of where the boundaries of the 'Land of Israel' should lie - it's surfaced multiple times since, most recently in Netanyahu's use last month of a map which apparently annexed the occupied territories into Israel:
[It was against this that the PLO started using the phrase 'between the river and the sea ..' originally to articulate the alternative of a secular polity]
The current Israeli Ambassador to London - who is on the Right of Likud has also articulated the same aim:
The MK also told Channel 13 that if in power he would annex the West Bank and abolish the Palestinian Authority, which administers the autonomous Palestinian areas of the territory. At the same time, he would deny Palestinian residents of the West Bank the right to obtain Israeli citizenship
Even the Times of Israel - no lefty outlet concludes:
Though the MK now claims to eschew the wholesale expulsion of Arabs advocated by Kahane, Otzma Yehudit’s proposals may be aimed at achieving a similar result.
That's the current Minister of National Security, who has also been handing out guns to settlers on the West Bank and Jewish residents of mixed Jewish/Arab cities:
As Israel currently claims sovereignty over the occupied territories, does this mean they have now killed more of their own citizens than Hamas did ?
No, because they claim sovereignty over the land, not the people. Like apartheid South Africa they maintain the fiction that these people have a homeland elsewhere, so they are resident aliens here under sufferance with no right to be here. See also National Front ideas about brown people always being immigrants regardless of place of birth.
Israel (or at least the part of it that has been politically ascendant for as long as I can recall) sees "the Arabs" not as people but as a problem to be solved. I think, on balance, they'd prefer "the arabs" in Eretz Israel to bugger off to Jordan and Egypt but have no particular compunction in the meantime about slaughtering as many as is convenient for their short-medium term objectives. They've done all this while proclaiming themselves "the Jewish state" and by implication representative of all Jews everywhere. Palestinian anti-semitism is an understandable, albeit abhorrent, reaction to this (a bit like the way some survivors of Japanese PoW camps held an abiding hated of the Japanese). This is important, because if you treat anti-semitism as a driver of Hamas in itself, rather than as a deformed manifestation of legitimate grievance, the temptation is to assume the only solution is annihilation of the people promoting that ideology. That works, more or less, if there is no legitimate grievance that is the trigger (as in Nazi Germany), but all Israel's response will do is create more anti-semites, both in Gaza from people who see (on the face of it) Jews murdering their families, and in the wider world from people looking on and (again, on the face of it, the reality is far more complex) Jews able to act with impunity and command the total support of western countries in doing so. It makes the leap to "Jews secretly control the world" a far easier one to take.
As I said before, I've been to the West Bank several times.
One of the most shocking things to witness (other than the number of guns and checkpoints etc) was the way that settlement architecture was itself designed to unsettle Palestinians.
For one thing, there's the visual aspect. The settlements tend to be built on top of the hills, tend to be built with bright white materials and therefore have the effect of dominating Palestinian villages. Which is exacerbated by settler-only roads and the separation wall snaking over the landscape.
But there's also the social aspect; Palestinian civilians are prevented from doing normal things by abusive settlers and police/military who do nothing to constrain them.
Water is another thing; I witnessed myself a sewage overflow pipe from a settlement which was positioned to flow onto a Palestinian farmer's land below. Palestinian boreholes run dry whilst settlers irrigate their crops.
It feels to me, and very many other witnesses who have been to see, that the West Bank settlements are designed to make life extremely difficult for West Bank Palestinians with the hope that people will just leave.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
I don't think one really needs to postulate a conspiracy - they attacked kibbutz in rural areas.
Gaza has/had pretty decent internet and Israel generally has a lot of geographical information online. I don't think it is impossible to imagine that the attack was planned with available information and luck.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
I don't think one really needs to postulate a conspiracy - they attacked kibbutz in rural areas.
Gaza has/had pretty decent internet and Israel generally has a lot of geographical information online. I don't think it is impossible to imagine that the attack was planned with available information and luck.
If Israel are putting strategic information about their infrastructure online they are stupider than I would have thought possible.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
If my mathematics are correct it's like 0.05% of all West Bank Palestinian children are in an Israeli jail in any year.
Oh, well, that's okay then.
It's very strange that Israeli defences were so porous. However, I'm reluctant to go down a conspiracy road, and really, the Israeli govt has been made to look inadequate in defence.
Isn't that getting into conspiracy theory territory, @Mousethief?
A bit like saying that Bush engineered 9/11.
As I understand it, Netanyahu's support for Hamas in times past was a divide and rule thing. They served a convenient purpose for him at the time. I've got no time for him nor Likud but it's a bit ofva stretch to suggest he's deliberately allowed 1400 of his people to be killed and over 200 taken hostage in order to provide a convenient excuse for him to pulverise Gaza.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
The thought had crossed my mind. I can't shake the thought that a small incursion from Gaza, followed by a traditional "mowing of the grass" would have been very useful politically for Netanyahu, and probably for Hamas too, but the whole thing got out of hand. That's not to say I think this was co-ordinated between Hamas and Israel, only that I could well believe that the weakening of defences around Gaza was known to both sides, as was the likelihood of it being exploited, and that Israeli security was reasonably sanguine about a small loss of life but never expected Hamas to blow open the chink in their armour so effectively.
Like most fascist wannabees it serves Netanyahu well to have an external enemy both threatening enough to run to Papa Benjamin for protection (even as he guts the judiciary) and too weak to inflict substantial harm. Hamas no longer fits the profile.
From what I understand, Hamas's strike was surgical. They took out power and communcations in a way that suggests they had inside information from somewhere. Given that we know (or are given to understand) that Netanyahu has supplied support for Hamas before, the whole thing smells like a gross of overripe eggs. What was Hamas's desired outcome? A few Israeli hostages? Something deeper is going on here.
The thought had crossed my mind. I can't shake the thought that a small incursion from Gaza, followed by a traditional "mowing of the grass" would have been very useful politically for Netanyahu, and probably for Hamas too, but the whole thing got out of hand. That's not to say I think this was co-ordinated between Hamas and Israel, only that I could well believe that the weakening of defences around Gaza was known to both sides, as was the likelihood of it being exploited, and that Israeli security was reasonably sanguine about a small loss of life but never expected Hamas to blow open the chink in their armour so effectively.
Like most fascist wannabees it serves Netanyahu well to have an external enemy both threatening enough to run to Papa Benjamin for protection (even as he guts the judiciary) and too weak to inflict substantial harm. Hamas no longer fits the profile.
Perhaps Hamas said, "Fuck this. Let's show them what we're capable of."
Could people not bring conspiracy theory type comment onto the thread please? Thanks!
And can I please remind people this
is meant to be an 'own voice' centred discussion? Which means drawing on the words and comment of people whose lived experience is directly affected by this from people in the war zones to minorities in our own communities and being careful to avoid sources of misinformation.
I know linking and citing and finding good own voice articles on subjects can be a lot of work but if people are writing or wanting to write a lot of posts in this thread - then engaging directly with what people say who are directly affected by the war and issues like islamophobia, racism and antisemitism is important.
Now this is the third time I've seen substantial discussion of antisemitism without Jewish voices being directly cited and engaged with - and we've got discussion of 'Palestinian antisemitism' but without the voices of Palestinians.
If we've time to put lots of posts on this thread, then we've time to look for and represent people's own voices. Can we do a bit more of this please?
As I said before, I've been to the West Bank several times.
One of the most shocking things to witness (other than the number of guns and checkpoints etc) was the way that settlement architecture was itself designed to unsettle Palestinians.
For one thing, there's the visual aspect. The settlements tend to be built on top of the hills, tend to be built with bright white materials and therefore have the effect of dominating Palestinian villages. Which is exacerbated by settler-only roads and the separation wall snaking over the landscape.
It feels to me, and very many other witnesses who have been to see, that the West Bank settlements are designed to make life extremely difficult for West Bank Palestinians with the hope that people will just leave.
More recently Antony Loewenstein has written on how the technologies of surveillance are tested on the Palestinian population before export elsewhere, there are a few interviews with him floating around, and his book is currently available for free on the verso website.
I just read a piece on WaPo that said it was important ot look at Hamas through a lens that wasn't reduced to "well, they're just evil." There are social structures in play that dictate behavior.
As the philosopher John Gray notes, “A campaign of mass murder is never simply an expression of psychopathic aggression.” To describe the things we can’t comprehend as evil is a cop-out. It allows us to believe something is wrong with “them” but not with us. And, paradoxically, it exposes an unwillingness to take terrorists seriously, reducing them to “crazy” or “irrational” adversaries. They usually aren’t.
I think, with some reflection, the same applies to Israel. I think both factions are caught in an existential political trap that was set up with the Balfour declaration, and at some point it's "rational" actors doing awful things because of the way the game has been set up.
What needs to happen is to rethink the game. But I don't know who is in a position to do that, and of course any rethinking will require violence on the ground, because it's about a nation in progress and calling rank on a nation requires seizing that state's monopoly on violence. I do understand why Israelis and Jews are - perhaps rationally - terrified of that proposition, including Jewish folks who are afraid of getting personal blowback for whatever atrocity Israel has committed most recently, similar to Palestinians and Hamas.
I think I have some sense of what should happen, but it doesn't give me much optimism. But I think the article indicated that there are people who do see this.
It is reported that the Israeli gov have pushed back at US appeals for calm by citing Hiroshima at the end of WW2.
I have no idea if this is true, but it made me wonder whether *all parties* in the conflict are citing the behaviour of others (in particular the Allies Vs Germany/Japan, the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan etc) as justification for their actions.
Even Hamas' heinous attack on civilians is, perhaps, not so much different to the various airstrikes which killed civilians at wedding celebrations in Afghanistan or "black op" missions which rendered people from various places to Gitmo.
Which isn't to blame the USA exactly - many of us lived in other states that at least tacitly supported the validity of the approaches.
But I guess it feels rather painful to realise that actions that we committed a few generations ago against civilians are now (it is reported) being used as justification by others of theirs.
It is reported that the Israeli gov have pushed back at US appeals for calm by citing Hiroshima at the end of WW2.
I have no idea if this is true, but it made me wonder whether *all parties* in the conflict are citing the behaviour of others (in particular the Allies Vs Germany/Japan, the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan etc) as justification for their actions.
Even Hamas' heinous attack on civilians is, perhaps, not so much different to the various airstrikes which killed civilians at wedding celebrations in Afghanistan or "black op" missions which rendered people from various places to Gitmo.
Which isn't to blame the USA exactly - many of us lived in other states that at least tacitly supported the validity of the approaches.
But I guess it feels rather painful to realise that actions that we committed a few generations ago against civilians are now (it is reported) being used as justification by others of theirs.
I think that tu quoque gets brought up a lot. I think every human rights violator in the world has mentioned America's own dark history. I remember reading about the Japanese making that argument during WWII, that in a sense they were playing the same game that white Europeans had played for several centuries and only recently stopped. Why yell at us when this is the basis of these empires you're so proud of? Why can't we do it too?
It's an interesting kind of post-colonial analysis. Is it different when oppressed people oppress other oppressed people?
I think it falls under the category of "explanation but not justification." A thought I keep having through this (might've already typed it here) is that nation building is always a horrifying project and I have on idea why anyone would want to do it.
But then, as someone once told me, it's a lot easier to say that when you're sitting in the heartland of a vastly secure nation state.
This thread could use more own-voice points of view. Here are a few. There are certainly others and maybe better ones. These are just some I found and was interested in.
Because I am somewhat concerned that this thread is veering into a Purgatorial take on an Epiphanical topic. So I wanted to give it some more own voice sources.
How has the conflict been addressed in sermons at worship services you have attended? I’ve only encountered prayers for peace at the RC services I’ve been to, but I haven’t been to the more liberal, more politically engaged RC parishes I usually attend in a few weeks.
Have any preachers you’ve observed made the war the main topic of their sermon (I know lectionary based sermons might make this difficult)? Have any been courageous or foolish enough to take a moral stance on specific parts of the debate - something more than demanding aid be delivered, hostages released, civilians and hospitals protected, or that there be a humanitarian ceasefire?
@stonespring Our sermon a couple Sunday before last demanded that we love everyone involved in that conflict and try to do so actively, which is very difficult. But it did not specify how that I remember.
@stonespring Our sermon a couple Sunday before last demanded that we love everyone involved in that conflict and try to do so actively, which is very difficult. But it did not specify how that I remember.
I suppose that one way of being pro-active, yet non-partisan, might be to support one of the aid agencies which do not restrict their help to one side or the other, IYSWIM.
I don't know what Our Place's FatherInCharge might have said in his sermons over the past couple of weeks, but he does ask (on his weekly news sheet, sent to as many members of the church as possible) for prayers for peace in *the Holy Land*. Perhaps all we can do is to simply implore God to somehow sort it out...
@stonespring Our sermon a couple Sunday before last demanded that we love everyone involved in that conflict and try to do so actively, which is very difficult. But it did not specify how that I remember.
Yeah, I think it was tied into the great commandment, to love unconditionally. Though (I think wisely) the sermon focused on the lesson rather than the situation. They also got directly mentioned in the prayers, again praying for everyone affected, which feels appropriate to me.
Today someone I know revealed herself to be Jewish and told us with some emotion about how her community is having to take precautions not to be visibly so in public. We knew about the precautions about schools and synagogues in London, and we knew about the unwanted attention: but when you have someone you actually know and like sitting in front of you trying to hold back tears, who has had to take off a pendant she's worn for decades because she's afraid someone will see it in public and attack her or her family, it's something like this that brings it home to you. This is the reality for a community in Britain. There is genuine fear out there.
We said, "You shouldn't have to do this." Her reply was, "I know, but I'm used to it. It's been this way since I was a small child." She is middle-aged.
We got her onto the topic of her upcoming holiday and her mood visibly lightened as she described what to expect, but it was quite an interesting discussion during which she said, and we agreed, that this is polarizing people to the extent that even people not normally interested in politics are taking stances on either side. Unfortunately some of these stances seem to be becoming inflexible, and ISTM there are too many knee-jerk reactions around by people who latch on to keywords and don't bother looking into context or verifying facts. Unfortunately this is exactly the sort of thing that demagogues look for and will tap into.
I told her that we're all here for her and she can talk to any of us at any time if she needs to. We are all only just people, and under the skin, whatever shade or nationality that may be, we are all the same.
The whole thing left me feeling that almost a century later the 1930s seem to be coming back to life again. I would say we haven't learnt anything in the past century but the problem is that the horrors that have an impact on one generation tend to get diluted to the point of being forgotten as time passes, if not glamourized.
I just don't get the mindset that says "those murderous bastards did something awful over there so I'll harass this chap with a skullcap / woman with a headscarf over here".
I just don't get the mindset that says "those murderous bastards did something awful over there so I'll harass this chap with a skullcap / woman with a headscarf over here".
Individuals who themselves have a tribal mentality perhaps assume that other people also have the same tribal mentality?
I had a similar conversation with a close Jewish friend. A Labour Party member and no fan of Israels current government. She told how hearing "from the river to the sea" awakened an almost group memory of the holocaust and earlier pogroms, which as a British Jew she has no family connections with.
She spoke of the fear in the local synagogues and Jewish secondary school.
I appreciate all of that but where does group culture come in. If you look at what was said it is not offensive. A speaker can't always be accountable for how their words are interpreted.
I appreciate all of that but where does group culture come in. If you look at what was said it is not offensive. A speaker can't always be accountable for how their words are interpreted.
The slogan has been used by militant groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad that have vowed to destroy Israel. It is regarded by the ADL as antisemitic or hate speech suggesting that it denies the right of Jews for self-determination, or advocates for their removal or extermination. It has also come under scrutiny in Germany, Austria and the UK, where it has been proposed to classify it as a criminal offense.
I just don't get the mindset that says "those murderous bastards did something awful over there so I'll harass this chap with a skullcap / woman with a headscarf over here".
I don't either, but I think we should try. I'm repeatedly struck by the level of connection some people outside of Israel and Palestine have to those places and the people there; I don't have a connection to any place or people outside the US, never mind something so strong. But here's a thought experiment: I'm living in exile in the UK, desperately missing home, and a militant group bombs southern California, where I've lived my whole adult life, or Boston where I have family, and I keep running across a subgroup of Britons who are fine with it because they think Americans are assholes who had it coming -- I wouldn't be too happy with that subgroup of Britons. Then if I multiply that out with generations, centuries, millenia of trauma -- I could probably bring myself to harass some folks.
I keep trying to remember Terence: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto" - I am human, I consider nothing human foreign to me.
Comments
Yes, quite likely, if Putin can do it, why not us. But also the govt allowed big lapses in security, so that Hamas could break through the border. No doubt many Israelis are furious about this, but if the military can keep up the killing at a steady rate for a period, the govt might hope to cover up their errors. But then none of it is predictable.
I've been thinking that all along. Once they're gone, they can't argue. No escape by land as the border crossings are closed, no escape by sea because of a blockade, no escape by air. How can governments stand by and not call at least for a ceasefire?
I've added the list as much for the benefit of those who want to go to one or to a vigil as much as for those who might want to know where to avoid being at that time.
Please don't link to any organisations calling for or publicising protests or demos as it's a form of advertising/campaigning and could land the Ship in legal problems.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I think both are arguable, certainly as far as potable water is concerned. Of course water is one of the major sources of grievance in the region.
It's beginning to look that way.
By the time governments get round to doing anything (if), it'll all be over: the remaining Palestinians will be the ones in the diaspora, and there won't be a homeland for them to go back to because it will have been taken over. I really wonder what the point of the UN resolutions for ceasefires is, other than to take a moral stance, when the main players seem to take no notice. They don't seem to be much more use in that respect than the League of Nations was.
Some of the Hamas rhetoric and their actions on October 7th appears to want millions of Jewish dead.
There's a vicious spiral of mutual annihilation - or the desire for it - going on and until that cycle is broken somehow it will continue.
The Israeli focus appears to be on the north of the Gaza Strip, presumably because that's where the bulk of the tunnels and Hamas command centres are. Even if it were possible for all non-combatants to move south as Israel requests and if Israel weren't also bombarding the southern part of Gaza, I do wonder what Israel's longer term goal is.
An Israeli spokesman on BBC2's 'Newsnight' said that Israel was fighting this war on behalf of 'all free countries', on behalf of all of us, because Hamas are worse than the Nazis.
So they are doing everyone a favour by destroying Hamas.
Where does it end? Just suppose by some fluke the IDF were able to root out and kill every single Hamas fighter without harming any non-combatants in the process and by some unfeasibly successful feat of arms they were able to do that tomorrow ... would that be an end of it?
No, of course not. There are already thousands of Palestinians who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods who would be only too willing to take revenge. And on and on and round and round it will go.
Someone I know who has contacts in Gaza was telling me how the medics there were doing extraordinary work as it was, even before this latest conflict, with the minimum of resources, supplies and equipment. Those same medics are dealing with horrific injuries, traumatised relatives and grieving families and trying to allow the dying to die with whatever dignity they can provide.
And all the while under constant Israeli bombardment.
It's no justification of Hamas nor an indication of anti-Semitism to salute their efforts and call for this whole thing to stop. That isn't to let Hamas off the hook. Nor is it to deny Israel its right to defend itself. But we are seeing civilian casualties within a short period on a scale I don't think I can remember in any conflict in my lifetime. We are also seeing potential and attempted pogroms in Dagestan and antisemitic attacks around the world.
Keir Starmer has told his Party that a ceasefire now would prolong the conflict later on. I'm no military expert - neither is Starmer - but I'd have thought the longer it goes on the worse the human tragedy becomes.
I'm not sure how Israel can 'finish the job' - whatever that entails - without inflicting more and more civilian casualties and heaping up even greater levels of resentment than already exist.
Perhaps the logic is that this resentment and anger already exists so killing thousands more people isn't going to make that much difference.
However 'surgical' the IDF claims to be it's not going to avoid civilian casualties. Equally, as defence analysts are warning, flattening vast areas of Gaza are going to make it harder to secure on the ground. The Allies found that at Caen in the weeks after D-Day.
The whole thing is Hell on earth.
Aside from their stated goal of wiping out Hamas, I doubt they have one.
And yet successive governments of Israel - including Netanyahu's- supported them as a bulwark against secular nationalism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1711329340804186619
What does that tell you about what they previously perceived the threat from Hamas to be?
Since everyone is fond of Hamas' rhetoric, let's take a look at the other side, from the founding platform of Likud:
Note that part about 'the Sea and the Jordan'; which codifies a debate which had long been had within Revisionist Zionism of where the boundaries of the 'Land of Israel' should lie - it's surfaced multiple times since, most recently in Netanyahu's use last month of a map which apparently annexed the occupied territories into Israel:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-brandishes-map-of-israel-that-includes-west-bank-and-gaza-at-un-speech/
[It was against this that the PLO started using the phrase 'between the river and the sea ..' originally to articulate the alternative of a secular polity]
The current Israeli Ambassador to London - who is on the Right of Likud has also articulated the same aim:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11624355/World-should-recognise-Israels-historic-claim-to-land-from-river-to-sea-minister-says.html
That's before we get to the language used by people like Ben Gvir or Smotrich
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvirs-policy-goals-going-to-extremes-even-europes-far-right-wont-touch/
Even the Times of Israel - no lefty outlet concludes:
That's the current Minister of National Security, who has also been handing out guns to settlers on the West Bank and Jewish residents of mixed Jewish/Arab cities:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-says-10000-assault-rifles-purchased-for-civilian-security-teams/
Continue the current policy, gradually annexing bits of the West Bank until there's nothing left.
No, because they claim sovereignty over the land, not the people. Like apartheid South Africa they maintain the fiction that these people have a homeland elsewhere, so they are resident aliens here under sufferance with no right to be here. See also National Front ideas about brown people always being immigrants regardless of place of birth.
Israel (or at least the part of it that has been politically ascendant for as long as I can recall) sees "the Arabs" not as people but as a problem to be solved. I think, on balance, they'd prefer "the arabs" in Eretz Israel to bugger off to Jordan and Egypt but have no particular compunction in the meantime about slaughtering as many as is convenient for their short-medium term objectives. They've done all this while proclaiming themselves "the Jewish state" and by implication representative of all Jews everywhere. Palestinian anti-semitism is an understandable, albeit abhorrent, reaction to this (a bit like the way some survivors of Japanese PoW camps held an abiding hated of the Japanese). This is important, because if you treat anti-semitism as a driver of Hamas in itself, rather than as a deformed manifestation of legitimate grievance, the temptation is to assume the only solution is annihilation of the people promoting that ideology. That works, more or less, if there is no legitimate grievance that is the trigger (as in Nazi Germany), but all Israel's response will do is create more anti-semites, both in Gaza from people who see (on the face of it) Jews murdering their families, and in the wider world from people looking on and (again, on the face of it, the reality is far more complex) Jews able to act with impunity and command the total support of western countries in doing so. It makes the leap to "Jews secretly control the world" a far easier one to take.
One of the most shocking things to witness (other than the number of guns and checkpoints etc) was the way that settlement architecture was itself designed to unsettle Palestinians.
For one thing, there's the visual aspect. The settlements tend to be built on top of the hills, tend to be built with bright white materials and therefore have the effect of dominating Palestinian villages. Which is exacerbated by settler-only roads and the separation wall snaking over the landscape.
But there's also the social aspect; Palestinian civilians are prevented from doing normal things by abusive settlers and police/military who do nothing to constrain them.
Water is another thing; I witnessed myself a sewage overflow pipe from a settlement which was positioned to flow onto a Palestinian farmer's land below. Palestinian boreholes run dry whilst settlers irrigate their crops.
It feels to me, and very many other witnesses who have been to see, that the West Bank settlements are designed to make life extremely difficult for West Bank Palestinians with the hope that people will just leave.
Oh, well, that's okay then.
Where did I say it was ok?
I don't think one really needs to postulate a conspiracy - they attacked kibbutz in rural areas.
Gaza has/had pretty decent internet and Israel generally has a lot of geographical information online. I don't think it is impossible to imagine that the attack was planned with available information and luck.
If Israel are putting strategic information about their infrastructure online they are stupider than I would have thought possible.
It's very strange that Israeli defences were so porous. However, I'm reluctant to go down a conspiracy road, and really, the Israeli govt has been made to look inadequate in defence.
A bit like saying that Bush engineered 9/11.
As I understand it, Netanyahu's support for Hamas in times past was a divide and rule thing. They served a convenient purpose for him at the time. I've got no time for him nor Likud but it's a bit ofva stretch to suggest he's deliberately allowed 1400 of his people to be killed and over 200 taken hostage in order to provide a convenient excuse for him to pulverise Gaza.
The thought had crossed my mind. I can't shake the thought that a small incursion from Gaza, followed by a traditional "mowing of the grass" would have been very useful politically for Netanyahu, and probably for Hamas too, but the whole thing got out of hand. That's not to say I think this was co-ordinated between Hamas and Israel, only that I could well believe that the weakening of defences around Gaza was known to both sides, as was the likelihood of it being exploited, and that Israeli security was reasonably sanguine about a small loss of life but never expected Hamas to blow open the chink in their armour so effectively.
Like most fascist wannabees it serves Netanyahu well to have an external enemy both threatening enough to run to Papa Benjamin for protection (even as he guts the judiciary) and too weak to inflict substantial harm. Hamas no longer fits the profile.
Perhaps Hamas said, "Fuck this. Let's show them what we're capable of."
And can I please remind people this
is meant to be an 'own voice' centred discussion? Which means drawing on the words and comment of people whose lived experience is directly affected by this from people in the war zones to minorities in our own communities and being careful to avoid sources of misinformation.
I know linking and citing and finding good own voice articles on subjects can be a lot of work but if people are writing or wanting to write a lot of posts in this thread - then engaging directly with what people say who are directly affected by the war and issues like islamophobia, racism and antisemitism is important.
Now this is the third time I've seen substantial discussion of antisemitism without Jewish voices being directly cited and engaged with - and we've got discussion of 'Palestinian antisemitism' but without the voices of Palestinians.
If we've time to put lots of posts on this thread, then we've time to look for and represent people's own voices. Can we do a bit more of this please?
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Eyal Weizman has written a very good book that covers the architecture of occupation in the West Bank/Gaza, LRB has a review from a few years back that covers the topic https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v29/n15/yonatan-mendel/imagined-territories
More recently Antony Loewenstein has written on how the technologies of surveillance are tested on the Palestinian population before export elsewhere, there are a few interviews with him floating around, and his book is currently available for free on the verso website.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/01/israel-bombing-khan-yunis-refugee-camp-gaza-palestinians
What needs to happen is to rethink the game. But I don't know who is in a position to do that, and of course any rethinking will require violence on the ground, because it's about a nation in progress and calling rank on a nation requires seizing that state's monopoly on violence. I do understand why Israelis and Jews are - perhaps rationally - terrified of that proposition, including Jewish folks who are afraid of getting personal blowback for whatever atrocity Israel has committed most recently, similar to Palestinians and Hamas.
I think I have some sense of what should happen, but it doesn't give me much optimism. But I think the article indicated that there are people who do see this.
Here's a free link.
I have no idea if this is true, but it made me wonder whether *all parties* in the conflict are citing the behaviour of others (in particular the Allies Vs Germany/Japan, the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan etc) as justification for their actions.
Even Hamas' heinous attack on civilians is, perhaps, not so much different to the various airstrikes which killed civilians at wedding celebrations in Afghanistan or "black op" missions which rendered people from various places to Gitmo.
Which isn't to blame the USA exactly - many of us lived in other states that at least tacitly supported the validity of the approaches.
But I guess it feels rather painful to realise that actions that we committed a few generations ago against civilians are now (it is reported) being used as justification by others of theirs.
I think that tu quoque gets brought up a lot. I think every human rights violator in the world has mentioned America's own dark history. I remember reading about the Japanese making that argument during WWII, that in a sense they were playing the same game that white Europeans had played for several centuries and only recently stopped. Why yell at us when this is the basis of these empires you're so proud of? Why can't we do it too?
It's an interesting kind of post-colonial analysis. Is it different when oppressed people oppress other oppressed people?
I think it falls under the category of "explanation but not justification." A thought I keep having through this (might've already typed it here) is that nation building is always a horrifying project and I have on idea why anyone would want to do it.
But then, as someone once told me, it's a lot easier to say that when you're sitting in the heartland of a vastly secure nation state.
An Israeli point of view
A Palestinian point of view
Jewish points of view
A Palestinian point of view
Have any preachers you’ve observed made the war the main topic of their sermon (I know lectionary based sermons might make this difficult)? Have any been courageous or foolish enough to take a moral stance on specific parts of the debate - something more than demanding aid be delivered, hostages released, civilians and hospitals protected, or that there be a humanitarian ceasefire?
I suppose that one way of being pro-active, yet non-partisan, might be to support one of the aid agencies which do not restrict their help to one side or the other, IYSWIM.
I don't know what Our Place's FatherInCharge might have said in his sermons over the past couple of weeks, but he does ask (on his weekly news sheet, sent to as many members of the church as possible) for prayers for peace in *the Holy Land*. Perhaps all we can do is to simply implore God to somehow sort it out...
Yeah, I think it was tied into the great commandment, to love unconditionally. Though (I think wisely) the sermon focused on the lesson rather than the situation. They also got directly mentioned in the prayers, again praying for everyone affected, which feels appropriate to me.
We said, "You shouldn't have to do this." Her reply was, "I know, but I'm used to it. It's been this way since I was a small child." She is middle-aged.
We got her onto the topic of her upcoming holiday and her mood visibly lightened as she described what to expect, but it was quite an interesting discussion during which she said, and we agreed, that this is polarizing people to the extent that even people not normally interested in politics are taking stances on either side. Unfortunately some of these stances seem to be becoming inflexible, and ISTM there are too many knee-jerk reactions around by people who latch on to keywords and don't bother looking into context or verifying facts. Unfortunately this is exactly the sort of thing that demagogues look for and will tap into.
I told her that we're all here for her and she can talk to any of us at any time if she needs to. We are all only just people, and under the skin, whatever shade or nationality that may be, we are all the same.
The whole thing left me feeling that almost a century later the 1930s seem to be coming back to life again. I would say we haven't learnt anything in the past century but the problem is that the horrors that have an impact on one generation tend to get diluted to the point of being forgotten as time passes, if not glamourized.
Individuals who themselves have a tribal mentality perhaps assume that other people also have the same tribal mentality?
She spoke of the fear in the local synagogues and Jewish secondary school.
I don't either, but I think we should try. I'm repeatedly struck by the level of connection some people outside of Israel and Palestine have to those places and the people there; I don't have a connection to any place or people outside the US, never mind something so strong. But here's a thought experiment: I'm living in exile in the UK, desperately missing home, and a militant group bombs southern California, where I've lived my whole adult life, or Boston where I have family, and I keep running across a subgroup of Britons who are fine with it because they think Americans are assholes who had it coming -- I wouldn't be too happy with that subgroup of Britons. Then if I multiply that out with generations, centuries, millenia of trauma -- I could probably bring myself to harass some folks.
I keep trying to remember Terence: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto" - I am human, I consider nothing human foreign to me.