Sorry, forgot to say, look upon the double standards re Russia and Israel, and marvel.
Technically what is effectively the government in Gaza (*) did effectively declare war on Israel.
Not that that justifies Israel's conduct of the war.
(*) Not officially recognised as such by Israel but in part supported by the Israeli government.
To consider the 7th October atrocity to be a declaration of war requires there to have been a peace previously. That was clearly not the case. Arguably the declaration of war against the Palestinians came in 1948, if not earlier.
Sorry, forgot to say, look upon the double standards re Russia and Israel, and marvel.
Technically what is effectively the government in Gaza (*) did effectively declare war on Israel.
Not that that justifies Israel's conduct of the war.
(*) Not officially recognised as such by Israel but in part supported by the Israeli government.
To consider the 7th October atrocity to be a declaration of war requires there to have been a peace previously. That was clearly not the case. Arguably the declaration of war against the Palestinians came in 1948, if not earlier.
And if one went back only as far as the withdrawal of troops from inside Gaza itself, the subsequent blockade of Gaza would also have constituted an act of war (adopting the implicit assumption that Gaza was a sovereign nation state).
The first International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing against Israel has been scheduled for next week after South Africa filed an application instituting proceedings against Israel before the ICJ concerning the Genocide Convention.
I found the below analysis piece from the Guardian both interesting and troubling, not least for the inference in the final paragraph (admittedly in advance of any finding by the ICJ but even so) that South Africa has in its submission left plenty of wriggle room which could presumably have been addressed by different/more comprehensive drafting.
Sorry, forgot to say, look upon the double standards re Russia and Israel, and marvel.
Technically what is effectively the government in Gaza (*) did effectively declare war on Israel.
Not that that justifies Israel's conduct of the war.
(*) Not officially recognised as such by Israel but in part supported by the Israeli government.
To consider the 7th October atrocity to be a declaration of war requires there to have been a peace previously. That was clearly not the case. Arguably the declaration of war against the Palestinians came in 1948, if not earlier.
How far is it profitable - to anyone - to try and work backwards to where 'it' 'started' though?
Especially when there might be* competing versions of what 'it' is and 'started' mean which these would force the ICJ/UN to adjudicate on/take a side.
I'm not talking about taking a side on the current situation, but actually take a side on the whole history of (for want of a better term) Arab-Israeli conflict.
Because one side of that would be engulfed in almost cosmic dislocation that the world prefers 1948 to say the fall of the second temple and expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the early 600s AD.**
I'm just not sure it helps anyone.
*read, 'will be/are'
**essentially, the whole thing is a mess and I don't know what the answer is.
These resettlement schemes In Africa are not only chilling but ironic if you look back at the Uganda Scheme of 1903. British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain wanted to create a Jewish homeland in a portion of British East Africa.
The British had the following motive in offering the protectorate to the Zionists:
* There was a desire to control the influx of Jewish refugees to the United Kingdom to protect British workers.
* The Uganda railway constructed with British taxpayer money needed to generate a return on investment, and thought Zionists could bring money and people into the protectorate.
* Gaining Jewish support was considered crucial for post-Anglo-Boer War policies in South Africa.
* There was genuine concern for the welfare of Jews in Eastern Europe
not least for the inference in the final paragraph (admittedly in advance of any finding by the ICJ but even so) that South Africa has in its submission left plenty of wriggle room which could presumably have been addressed by different/more comprehensive drafting.
I think Wintour may misunderstand the charge; there are no set of mitigating clauses in the convention itself.
Because one side of that would be engulfed in almost cosmic dislocation that the world prefers 1948 to say the fall of the second temple and expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the early 600s AD.**
The 'Muslim conquest' seems to have been a case of conversions rather than population replacement, genetic studies generally indicate a continuity between Palestinians and Bronze Age era populations of the Southern Levant, and every indication is that they are largely the descendants of those who always lived in the area, including Jews who converted to Christianity and whose descendants later converted to Islam.
genetic studies generally indicate a continuity between Palestinians and Bronze Age era populations of the Southern Levant, and every indication is that they are largely the descendants of those who always lived in the area, including Jews who converted to Christianity and whose descendants later converted to Islam.
when was it that the thumbscrews were applied to the remaining Jews by the Palestine authorities? I know it got difficult from after 700AD when they were effectively dispossessed of land by super taxation for not being Muslim, but probably when the Mamluks took over definitely?
Either way, you'd expect a genetic connection given the numbers who took the conversion option rather than the leaving option.
when was it that the thumbscrews were applied to the remaining Jews by the Palestine authorities? I know it got difficult from after 700AD when they were effectively dispossessed of land by super taxation for not being Muslim, but probably when the Mamluks took over definitely?
There seems always to have been some Jews in the modern Israel/Palestine area. The population seems to have gone up and down over the centuries with the Mamluk period apparently being an up (see for instance the Wikipedia article on Old Yishuv, though read with care).
when was it that the thumbscrews were applied to the remaining Jews by the Palestine authorities? I know it got difficult from after 700AD when they were effectively dispossessed of land by super taxation for not being Muslim, but probably when the Mamluks took over definitely?
There seems always to have been some Jews in the modern Israel/Palestine area. The population seems to have gone up and down over the centuries with the Mamluk period apparently being an up (see for instance the Wikipedia article on Old Yishuv, though read with care).
thanks - sorry yes wasn't meaning to imply that they'd all gone - just that (most?) appear to have converted or left.
Anyway apologies, I think I'm dragging us off the subject of now and will retire elsethread!
The 'Muslim conquest' seems to have been a case of conversions rather than population replacement, genetic studies generally indicate a continuity between Palestinians and Bronze Age era populations of the Southern Levant, and every indication is that they are largely the descendants of those who always lived in the area, including Jews who converted to Christianity and whose descendants later converted to Islam.
I think most informed historians of Islam would say they didn't need genetic studies to tell them that. Early Islam was very much an elite religion and if anything discouraged conversion from Christians and Jews as conversion would confer elite status and privileges. Christian and Jewish viziers were common as they could have no ambitions for power held in their own right.
The 'Muslim conquest' seems to have been a case of conversions rather than population replacement, genetic studies generally indicate a continuity between Palestinians and Bronze Age era populations of the Southern Levant, and every indication is that they are largely the descendants of those who always lived in the area, including Jews who converted to Christianity and whose descendants later converted to Islam.
I think most informed historians of Islam would say they didn't need genetic studies to tell them that. Early Islam was very much an elite religion and if anything discouraged conversion from Christians and Jews as conversion would confer elite status and privileges. Christian and Jewish viziers were common as they could have no ambitions for power held in their own right.
Yes, although the point I was making was slightly different; in that the continuity indicates that there wasn't a mass replacement of population in 70 AD or 600-800 AD that the events of the 20th Century were 'correcting' in some way.
In general, I find the exercise of going back in time making lists of who wronged who when, in order to decide "who started it" and therefore "whose fault it was" as though we were dealing with some sort of schoolyard dispute to be unhelpful. As posters are noting, the answer you get rather strongly depends on the starting point you choose.
It's important to acknowledge wrongs and grievances, but trying to match the number of tits to the number of tats and think that when you've got them to match, then things are somehow "equal" isn't a reasonable thing to do.
In general, I find the exercise of going back in time making lists of who wronged who when, in order to decide "who started it" and therefore "whose fault it was" as though we were dealing with some sort of schoolyard dispute to be unhelpful. As posters are noting, the answer you get rather strongly depends on the starting point you choose.
It's important to acknowledge wrongs and grievances, but trying to match the number of tits to the number of tats and think that when you've got them to match, then things are somehow "equal" isn't a reasonable thing to do.
Agreed, though I would argue that the oppression of the Palestinians over the last 75 years far exceeds the wrongs they have done to Israelis, there is no meaningful sense of being "equal".
when was it that the thumbscrews were applied to the remaining Jews by the Palestine authorities? I know it got difficult from after 700AD when they were effectively dispossessed of land by super taxation for not being Muslim, but probably when the Mamluks took over definitely?
There seems always to have been some Jews in the modern Israel/Palestine area. The population seems to have gone up and down over the centuries with the Mamluk period apparently being an up (see for instance the Wikipedia article on Old Yishuv, though read with care).
Yes, I've been making biographical notes for a friend of mine -- her Jewish family comes from Tsafed in Palestine (now Safed in Eretz Israel) and for centuries lived with a majority of Palestinian neighbours in relative peace. The great loss for many Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewish communities was not so much the Shoah or even the Nakba but the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain in the 11th century. Tsafed became a centre for the Lurianic Kabbalah as a response to that trauma of displacement and exile. Palestinian Islamic scholars and Jewish rabbinical students worked together to set up printing presses in Tsafed during the Renaissance. It isn't about 'how many' when it comes to the early diaspora or returns of aliyah, but the enduring influence and shared land.
In one way, much of this history is water under the bridge but I find it a good reminder that these histories are not closed or monolithic. I do wish we had more 'own voices' to hear that diversity.
The great loss for many Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewish communities was not so much the Shoah or even the Nakba but the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain in the 11th century. Tsafed became a centre for the Lurianic Kabbalah as a response to that trauma of displacement and exile.
15th century? IIRC (which I very well may not) Tsafed became a Kabbalah centre after the Alhambra decree (1492)?
Incidentally, re Own Voices, I've said before that I'm not happy about doing it on SoF - or to be honest anywhere else on social media. Mostly because it's not *quite* my story to tell, having married into it rather than being born into it (though it is consequently my children's story). But also for all the usual reasons that this subject doesn't get touched with a bargepole by many/most of those closest to it.
Funnily enough, my Kabbalah history/knowledge comes/started with freemasonry rather than Judaism! I've got no qualms about discussing that, even though it's also painting a target. Funny old world.
The great loss for many Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewish communities was not so much the Shoah or even the Nakba but the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain in the 11th century. Tsafed became a centre for the Lurianic Kabbalah as a response to that trauma of displacement and exile.
15th century? IIRC (which I very well may not) Tsafed became a Kabbalah centre after the Alhambra decree (1492)?
@betjemaniac sorry, I just saw this. I'm talking about the spread of the Zohar as precursor to the Lurianic Kabbalah and using a shorthand so deliberately tried not to be specific about dates, but I'm also working with old family correspondence or oral accounts of rabbinic ancestors so nothing is too precise.
The South African legal team will present a case of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice on Thursday. Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, has said that “there is nothing more atrocious and preposterous” than the lawsuit accusing Israel of genocidal actions against Palestinians in Gaza. South Africa is also calling for an emergency suspension of the IDF military campaign. U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby has called the lawsuit “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever." There is considerable informal international support for South Africa's stand.
The US govt has been complicit with the State of Israel and politicians like Netanyahu for a long time. The groundswell of global opposition keeps rising, though, and I'm reminded of Martin Luther King saying that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.
Maybe so, @quetzalcoat. We need to keep working for justice anyway.
Today most of us in South Africa are following live coverage of SA's presentation to the ICJ in the Hague. Tomorrow Israel will present their oral submissions and replies. Even if the ICJ does pass down provisional measures for an immediate ceasefire, it is more than probable that Israel (and the US) will ignore them. Global condemnation will increase though and in future other states may be able to use the judgement and the genocide convention as a means of law enforcement.
Thank you @MaryLouise I’m pleased to hear that someone is still trying to do something to stop the slaughter of innocent people. My MP voted against a ceasefire - because there was no other solution on the table, reading between the lines of the reply.
I never thought I would see the day when the leaders of this country wouldn’t stand up against it loudly and clearly when people were being deliberately killed by hunger, thirst, exposure, and lack of medical care (because their hospitals had been destroyed!) as well as by indiscriminate bombing and sniper shooting! I am ashamed of them.
I never thought I would see the day when the leaders of this country wouldn’t stand up against it loudly and clearly when people were being deliberately killed by hunger, thirst, exposure, and lack of medical care (because their hospitals had been destroyed!) as well as by indiscriminate bombing and sniper shooting! I am ashamed of them.
I'm touched by your faith in our political class but I don't see anything surprising about it. Our leaders have always cheered along when "our bastards" were doing the killing, and only criticised when it was "their bastards" doing it. Heck, we've been supplying the Saudi war crimes in Yemen for years.
This issue came up earlier in the thread, so thought it would be useful to post a slight update, the ADL has officially acknowledged that it's now counting "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" as antisemitic incidents in the tally it publishes:
This issue came up earlier in the thread, so thought it would be useful to post a slight update, the ADL has officially acknowledged that it's now counting "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" as antisemitic incidents in the tally it publishes:
This issue came up earlier in the thread, so thought it would be useful to post a slight update, the ADL has officially acknowledged that it's now counting "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" as antisemitic incidents in the tally it publishes:
A chilling moment from Irish KC Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh as a member of the South African legal team: "The first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time in the desperate so far vain hope that the world might do something."
I found the South African presentation harrowing and impressive, no live coverage from the BBC or CNN. It will be interesting to hear what Martin Shaw's team for Israel will argue later today
Meanwhile, with US and UK airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen - and Sunak conveniently manouevring the UK Parliament out of being able to debate this until Monday - are we seeing a legitimate response to piratical action or a worrying step closer to wider escalation and an all-out regional conflict?
Is Sunak trying to play a 'Falklands Factor' card to shore up his failing government's chances in the election later this year?
Is Biden baiting Iran?
Is it giving Putin another excuse for his own territorial aggression - as if he needed any more 'legitimacy' in his own eyes?
The Western powers seem to be downplaying the connection with the Israel/Gaza conflict to some extent but everyone knows all these things are interlinked.
FWIW I don't have any sympathy for the Iranian regime nor the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping nor do I have any time for Hamas or Hezbollah nor the Saudis or Netanyahu or any of the major players for that matter.
FWIW I don't have any sympathy for the Iranian regime nor the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping
To be clear, Ansar Allah were more or less playing by cruiser rules until the Americans showed up gang-handed. As for their blockade of goods being shipped to Israel, it was no more or no less legitimate than any other unilateral blockade.
The Western powers seem to be downplaying the connection with the Israel/Gaza conflict to some extent but everyone knows all these things are interlinked.
They've been fairly clear about linking the blockade to the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
Apparently parts of the State Department are incredibly frustrated with Biden's Middle East policy, with senior staffers telling the press that they can't 'rein him in'
"“I’ve been trying to keep an avalanche from falling on Lebanon and so have a lot of people,” one official told HuffPost, saying many national security personnel fear unchecked U.S. support for Israel will make it overly confident about expanding operations into Lebanon. “The problem is no one can rein in Biden, and if Biden has a policy, he’s the commander-in-chief ― we have to carry it out. That’s what it comes down to, very, very, very unfortunately.”"
Mother Jones has a long piece covering the history of Biden's interactions with Israel, his early development as a protege of Scoop Jackson, and the ways in which he frustrated Obama-era policy:
FWIW I don't have any sympathy for the Iranian regime nor the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping
To be clear, Ansar Allah were more or less playing by cruiser rules until the Americans showed up gang-handed. As for their blockade of goods being shipped to Israel, it was no more or no less legitimate than any other unilateral blockade.
The Western powers seem to be downplaying the connection with the Israel/Gaza conflict to some extent but everyone knows all these things are interlinked.
They've been fairly clear about linking the blockade to the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
So that makes it alright then ...
I fail to see how attacking shipping in the Red Sea in any way helps the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
'Oooh, they are attacking Western commercial interests in the Red Sea. Let's get some aid and medical supplies into Gaza and then they might stop doing it ...'
It appears that the Houthi's record on human rights leaves a lot to be desired - as does Iran's, Saudi Arabia's and various regimes supported by each of the superpowers and the superpowers themselves.
FWIW I don't have any sympathy for the Iranian regime nor the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping
To be clear, Ansar Allah were more or less playing by cruiser rules until the Americans showed up gang-handed. As for their blockade of goods being shipped to Israel, it was no more or no less legitimate than any other unilateral blockade.
The Western powers seem to be downplaying the connection with the Israel/Gaza conflict to some extent but everyone knows all these things are interlinked.
They've been fairly clear about linking the blockade to the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
So that makes it alright then ...
I fail to see the part of my post where I stated that, perhaps you could point it out?
I fail to see how attacking shipping in the Red Sea in any way helps the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
'Oooh, they are attacking Western commercial interests in the Red Sea. Let's get some aid and medical supplies into Gaza and then they might stop doing it ...'
It was explicitly a blockade intended to put economic pressure on Israel. They were boarding and turning back ships bound for Israeli ports, or ones that refused to state their destination [*]. Things went kinetic when western navies started showing up.
This is widely understood in the Arab and Muslim world, which is also one of the reasons why only Bahrain was willing to get in on the latest action with the Saudis mostly tacitly approving of the Yemenese action and Turkey being critical of the Western strikes.
Whatever you may think of them the options are to consider them an independent actor with some agency who have their own frame of looking at things or as completely insane (which gets us into orientalist territory)
It appears that the Houthi's record on human rights leaves a lot to be desired - as does Iran's, Saudi Arabia's and various regimes supported by each of the superpowers and the superpowers themselves.
That's something of a non-sequitur, the current foreign policy objectives aren't being driven by consideration of their human rights record, nor does bombing populations have a good track record of introducing consideration of human rights or democracy.
It was explicitly a blockade intended to put economic pressure on Israel. They were boarding and turning back ships bound for Israeli ports, or ones that refused to state their destination [*]. Things went kinetic when western navies started showing up.
If western navies aren't showing up to protect western shipping against being boarded by pirates, then there wouldn't be much point in having a navy, would there?
I presume the 'strategic logic', such as it is, revolves around sending a warning to Iran by bombing targets associated with the rebels it supports in the Yemen and a message to Israel that the West still supports it. If any such message were needed.
The conflict in Yemen is, of course, widely regarded as a 'proxy war' between the Saudis and Iran.
@chrisstiles, no, I'm not an 'orientalist' and think the Arab world has good grounds to be suspicious of the US and its allies. If I were to say the same about Russia, though, I'd be accused of being a Putinista. I'm certainly not that either.
The 'Arab world' is no more monolithic than any other 'bloc' though and there are all manner of complex histories and relationships.
The whole thing is a bloody mess and potential powder keg. I don't see the latest air strikes improving things one iota. If anything, it'll just inflame things further.
I 'get' shooting down incoming drones and missiles and can see tactical military reasons why Western commanders might want to 'degrade' capability at source - to use the euphemistic language deployed on such occasions - but on a strategic level I can't see how this can lead anywhere but a prolongation of conflict at best or a widening of it at worst.
Comments
To consider the 7th October atrocity to be a declaration of war requires there to have been a peace previously. That was clearly not the case. Arguably the declaration of war against the Palestinians came in 1948, if not earlier.
And if one went back only as far as the withdrawal of troops from inside Gaza itself, the subsequent blockade of Gaza would also have constituted an act of war (adopting the implicit assumption that Gaza was a sovereign nation state).
I found the below analysis piece from the Guardian both interesting and troubling, not least for the inference in the final paragraph (admittedly in advance of any finding by the ICJ but even so) that South Africa has in its submission left plenty of wriggle room which could presumably have been addressed by different/more comprehensive drafting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/04/stakes-high-as-south-africa-brings-claim-of-genocidal-intent-against-israel
How far is it profitable - to anyone - to try and work backwards to where 'it' 'started' though?
Especially when there might be* competing versions of what 'it' is and 'started' mean which these would force the ICJ/UN to adjudicate on/take a side.
I'm not talking about taking a side on the current situation, but actually take a side on the whole history of (for want of a better term) Arab-Israeli conflict.
Because one side of that would be engulfed in almost cosmic dislocation that the world prefers 1948 to say the fall of the second temple and expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the early 600s AD.**
I'm just not sure it helps anyone.
*read, 'will be/are'
**essentially, the whole thing is a mess and I don't know what the answer is.
The British had the following motive in offering the protectorate to the Zionists:
* There was a desire to control the influx of Jewish refugees to the United Kingdom to protect British workers.
* The Uganda railway constructed with British taxpayer money needed to generate a return on investment, and thought Zionists could bring money and people into the protectorate.
* Gaining Jewish support was considered crucial for post-Anglo-Boer War policies in South Africa.
* There was genuine concern for the welfare of Jews in Eastern Europe
I think Wintour may misunderstand the charge; there are no set of mitigating clauses in the convention itself.
The 'Muslim conquest' seems to have been a case of conversions rather than population replacement, genetic studies generally indicate a continuity between Palestinians and Bronze Age era populations of the Southern Levant, and every indication is that they are largely the descendants of those who always lived in the area, including Jews who converted to Christianity and whose descendants later converted to Islam.
when was it that the thumbscrews were applied to the remaining Jews by the Palestine authorities? I know it got difficult from after 700AD when they were effectively dispossessed of land by super taxation for not being Muslim, but probably when the Mamluks took over definitely?
Either way, you'd expect a genetic connection given the numbers who took the conversion option rather than the leaving option.
There seems always to have been some Jews in the modern Israel/Palestine area. The population seems to have gone up and down over the centuries with the Mamluk period apparently being an up (see for instance the Wikipedia article on Old Yishuv, though read with care).
thanks - sorry yes wasn't meaning to imply that they'd all gone - just that (most?) appear to have converted or left.
Anyway apologies, I think I'm dragging us off the subject of now and will retire elsethread!
Yes, although the point I was making was slightly different; in that the continuity indicates that there wasn't a mass replacement of population in 70 AD or 600-800 AD that the events of the 20th Century were 'correcting' in some way.
It's important to acknowledge wrongs and grievances, but trying to match the number of tits to the number of tats and think that when you've got them to match, then things are somehow "equal" isn't a reasonable thing to do.
Agreed, though I would argue that the oppression of the Palestinians over the last 75 years far exceeds the wrongs they have done to Israelis, there is no meaningful sense of being "equal".
Of course, but there are a heck of a lot more of the former, plus the hundreds of thousands made homeless, the maimed, the sick, and the starving.
Yes, I've been making biographical notes for a friend of mine -- her Jewish family comes from Tsafed in Palestine (now Safed in Eretz Israel) and for centuries lived with a majority of Palestinian neighbours in relative peace. The great loss for many Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewish communities was not so much the Shoah or even the Nakba but the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain in the 11th century. Tsafed became a centre for the Lurianic Kabbalah as a response to that trauma of displacement and exile. Palestinian Islamic scholars and Jewish rabbinical students worked together to set up printing presses in Tsafed during the Renaissance. It isn't about 'how many' when it comes to the early diaspora or returns of aliyah, but the enduring influence and shared land.
In one way, much of this history is water under the bridge but I find it a good reminder that these histories are not closed or monolithic. I do wish we had more 'own voices' to hear that diversity.
15th century? IIRC (which I very well may not) Tsafed became a Kabbalah centre after the Alhambra decree (1492)?
Funnily enough, my Kabbalah history/knowledge comes/started with freemasonry rather than Judaism! I've got no qualms about discussing that, even though it's also painting a target. Funny old world.
@betjemaniac sorry, I just saw this. I'm talking about the spread of the Zohar as precursor to the Lurianic Kabbalah and using a shorthand so deliberately tried not to be specific about dates, but I'm also working with old family correspondence or oral accounts of rabbinic ancestors so nothing is too precise.
https://www.972mag.com/israel-torture-camp-gaza-detainees/
And Isaac Chotiner has an article in the newyorker about famine hitting the population:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/gaza-is-starving
And the situation in Gaza worsens day by day.
Today most of us in South Africa are following live coverage of SA's presentation to the ICJ in the Hague. Tomorrow Israel will present their oral submissions and replies. Even if the ICJ does pass down provisional measures for an immediate ceasefire, it is more than probable that Israel (and the US) will ignore them. Global condemnation will increase though and in future other states may be able to use the judgement and the genocide convention as a means of law enforcement.
I never thought I would see the day when the leaders of this country wouldn’t stand up against it loudly and clearly when people were being deliberately killed by hunger, thirst, exposure, and lack of medical care (because their hospitals had been destroyed!) as well as by indiscriminate bombing and sniper shooting! I am ashamed of them.
I'm touched by your faith in our political class but I don't see anything surprising about it. Our leaders have always cheered along when "our bastards" were doing the killing, and only criticised when it was "their bastards" doing it. Heck, we've been supplying the Saudi war crimes in Yemen for years.
https://forward.com/news/575687/anti-defamation-league-adl-antisemitism-count-anti-zionism/
In other words in their view you could have a world entirely composed of proud Jews and anti-semitism would still exist. Bonkers.
Is anyone else keeping a tally?
I found the South African presentation harrowing and impressive, no live coverage from the BBC or CNN. It will be interesting to hear what Martin Shaw's team for Israel will argue later today
Is Sunak trying to play a 'Falklands Factor' card to shore up his failing government's chances in the election later this year?
Is Biden baiting Iran?
Is it giving Putin another excuse for his own territorial aggression - as if he needed any more 'legitimacy' in his own eyes?
The Western powers seem to be downplaying the connection with the Israel/Gaza conflict to some extent but everyone knows all these things are interlinked.
FWIW I don't have any sympathy for the Iranian regime nor the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping nor do I have any time for Hamas or Hezbollah nor the Saudis or Netanyahu or any of the major players for that matter.
It all smells.
To be clear, Ansar Allah were more or less playing by cruiser rules until the Americans showed up gang-handed. As for their blockade of goods being shipped to Israel, it was no more or no less legitimate than any other unilateral blockade.
They've been fairly clear about linking the blockade to the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
Apparently parts of the State Department are incredibly frustrated with Biden's Middle East policy, with senior staffers telling the press that they can't 'rein him in'
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/israel-lebanon-biden_n_65998abfe4b0bfe5ff6360fb
"“I’ve been trying to keep an avalanche from falling on Lebanon and so have a lot of people,” one official told HuffPost, saying many national security personnel fear unchecked U.S. support for Israel will make it overly confident about expanding operations into Lebanon. “The problem is no one can rein in Biden, and if Biden has a policy, he’s the commander-in-chief ― we have to carry it out. That’s what it comes down to, very, very, very unfortunately.”"
Mother Jones has a long piece covering the history of Biden's interactions with Israel, his early development as a protege of Scoop Jackson, and the ways in which he frustrated Obama-era policy:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/12/how-joe-biden-became-americas-top-israel-hawk/
The video of Biden condemning Bush Sr. pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements is worth watching to gain a flavour of his opinions.
So that makes it alright then ...
I fail to see how attacking shipping in the Red Sea in any way helps the provision of food and medical relief to Gaza.
'Oooh, they are attacking Western commercial interests in the Red Sea. Let's get some aid and medical supplies into Gaza and then they might stop doing it ...'
It appears that the Houthi's record on human rights leaves a lot to be desired - as does Iran's, Saudi Arabia's and various regimes supported by each of the superpowers and the superpowers themselves.
I fail to see the part of my post where I stated that, perhaps you could point it out?
It was explicitly a blockade intended to put economic pressure on Israel. They were boarding and turning back ships bound for Israeli ports, or ones that refused to state their destination [*]. Things went kinetic when western navies started showing up.
This is widely understood in the Arab and Muslim world, which is also one of the reasons why only Bahrain was willing to get in on the latest action with the Saudis mostly tacitly approving of the Yemenese action and Turkey being critical of the Western strikes.
Whatever you may think of them the options are to consider them an independent actor with some agency who have their own frame of looking at things or as completely insane (which gets us into orientalist territory)
That's something of a non-sequitur, the current foreign policy objectives aren't being driven by consideration of their human rights record, nor does bombing populations have a good track record of introducing consideration of human rights or democracy.
My preference would be for neither of these things - but I don’t understand the strategic logic.
If western navies aren't showing up to protect western shipping against being boarded by pirates, then there wouldn't be much point in having a navy, would there?
The conflict in Yemen is, of course, widely regarded as a 'proxy war' between the Saudis and Iran.
@chrisstiles, no, I'm not an 'orientalist' and think the Arab world has good grounds to be suspicious of the US and its allies. If I were to say the same about Russia, though, I'd be accused of being a Putinista. I'm certainly not that either.
The 'Arab world' is no more monolithic than any other 'bloc' though and there are all manner of complex histories and relationships.
The whole thing is a bloody mess and potential powder keg. I don't see the latest air strikes improving things one iota. If anything, it'll just inflame things further.
I 'get' shooting down incoming drones and missiles and can see tactical military reasons why Western commanders might want to 'degrade' capability at source - to use the euphemistic language deployed on such occasions - but on a strategic level I can't see how this can lead anywhere but a prolongation of conflict at best or a widening of it at worst.