"how do you feel about letting this minority group take over half of your land?".
".. on which 45% of you currently live",
"and where you will be fundamentally unwelcome and unwanted":
Addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Ben-Gurion expressed his apprehension, stating:
the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.
(Jamal K Kanj (2010) Children of Catastrophe)
Remember this the next time someone tells you "The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 and it was they who rejected it".
Isaac Chotiner has an interview with a pediatrician who spent some time in Gaza, covering the consequences of the failure to allow medical aid into the territory:
Israel is on adequately good terms with some of its neighbors: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They are menaced by Syria and by Hezbollah in Lebanon and by their own internal conflicts. It may be hard to come to peaceful terms with Syria or Hezbollah, but they certainly need to do better with their own indigenous population. They need to work on what is achievable and at hand. Paranoia is not a good basis for peace.
Israel is on adequately good terms with some of its neighbors: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
It's worth remembering that they are on good terms with Egypt solely because the west backed a coup that deposed the closest thing to democratic government Egypt has seen in decades.
(with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
On the other hand/from another side you'd have a spectrum running from 'collusion' through to 'trying to stop Jewish immigrants getting off the beach when they arrived and attempting to turn around ships all over the Med'.
Depends who's telling the story and what point they're trying to make I guess.
(with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Of the total number of Palestinians affected by the Nakba about half were displaced prior to the British leaving the former Mandate on May 15th 1948.
(with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Of the total number of Palestinians affected by the Nakba about half were displaced prior to the British leaving the former Mandate on May 15th 1948.
I'm not sure that speaks to collusion so much as loss of control in the face of proto-Israeli terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
(with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
On the other hand/from another side you'd have a spectrum running from 'collusion' through to 'trying to stop Jewish immigrants getting off the beach when they arrived and attempting to turn around ships all over the Med'.
Depends who's telling the story and what point they're trying to make I guess.
As an aside, my ex-husband's grandfather was in the Royal Navy during WWII (chief petty officer). He intended to remain in the Navy after the war. However he was then put on " stopping Jewish refugees landing in Palestine"duty. He felt so strongly that this was the wrong thing to be doing that he left the navy in c1948.
(with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Of the total number of Palestinians affected by the Nakba about half were displaced prior to the British leaving the former Mandate on May 15th 1948.
I'm not sure that speaks to collusion so much as loss of control in the face of proto-Israeli terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
I can't dig up the references right now, but I believe both Rashid Khalidi and Avi Shlaim have documented collusion; e.g the CO in charge of the forces in Jaffa calls in the leaders of the Israeli militias and telling them that after date X he won't be able to keep order in the city or giving one side preferential access to things like land deeds enabling dispossession and the creation of facts on the ground.
And I'd agree that the kind of safety that Israelis wish to live in is impossible.
You don't think that Israelis would be satisfied with the sort of safety enjoyed by Americans, or Brits, or the French, or Germans?
Pardon the delayed response, but I think others have answered you as well as I could, if not better.
I think that turning Israel into America or France or Germany would require catastrophic quantities of violence the likes of which none of us really want to watch. Nation building is a disgusting, idolatrous project of violence. All of us should be ashamed of it, and I think the better hearts in all of these nations are spending a lot of effort trying to clean up the mess we've made. Why add to it?
Watching the extended conflict with extreme concern. The U.S. military has mounted a series of air and missile strikes against Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for a suicide drone strike that killed three US soldiers at a remote base in Jordan. To date, Iranian-backed militias have mounted more than 165 drone, missile and rocket attacks on US troops stationed in Iraq and Syria, to which the US has reacted with air strikes since last October.
The question for those of us watching from Africa is whether the US (Biden) will move to strike Iran itself because it has trained and supported proxies. So far Biden (in an election year) has been more reluctant to widen the Israeli-Gaza war into a regional conflict. The axis of resistance or network of Iranian proxies is well-established and includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, a coalition of militias in Iraq known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Houthi forces in Yemen and Iran-linked groups in eastern Syria.
Political analysts from the Middle East (Yezid Saiyigh, Marwan Bishara) have pointed out that the US is unlikely to deter Iran solely by going after its proxies. Iran works with militant proxies in order to claim that it is not responsible for any attacks. In reality, Iran exercises control over some proxies and has considerable influence with others, notably Hezbollah. The Houthis are less under Iranian control, but Iran arms, trains, and funds them.
So far Biden (in an election year) has been more reluctant to widen the Israeli-Gaza war into a regional conflict.
It's ironic that when Biden's foreign policy record was being examined back in 2020 the excuse would occasionally be trotted out that he'd learnt from his previous experiences but so far there's very little sign of this - as posted up thread previous US presidents - in post during the time Biden has been in politics - have been willing to call for Israel to show restraint.
That said the current set of strikes were well telegraphed, with Sky News Arabia getting a briefing from US intelligence that B1-Bs had just taken off from Lakenheath (UK), so perhaps they hoped to signal limited retaliation or it was the result of a back room deal.
It's somewhat indicative of feelings that the only country in the region willing to sign up to the initial attacks on Yemen was Bahrain (with the Saudi's going so far as mild condemnation).
(with the Saudi's going so far as mild condemnation).
Which is somewhat ironic given how much time, effort and western weapons Saudi has expended in bombing the shit out of Houthi-held Yemen over the last decade.
(with the Saudi's going so far as mild condemnation).
Which is somewhat ironic given how much time, effort and western weapons Saudi has expended in bombing the shit out of Houthi-held Yemen over the last decade.
Well, since the Yemenese demonstrated the ability to hit their oil refineries they decided peace is the better option, and it's no surprise that they'd prefer to concentrate on Vision 2030 and building the worlds longest city in a desert over stirring that particular regional hornets nest.
There are particular elements about this story that have made it cross over into Western media, but there's a daily stream of similar occurrences happening in Gaza - of civilians being incapacitated followed by shots at people trying to assist them - to the point where it seems to be the effect of - at the very least - tactical choices.
There is also video evidence of multiple instances of field executions - war crimes at the very least.
Both Channel4 and FT have separately examined the dossier Israel produced on UNWRA and have stated there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusions being reported:
Benjamin Netanyahu says he has ordered the military to prepare a plan to evacuate the population of Rafah ahead of an expected Israeli invasion
(from Guardian but I'm sure similar wording elsewhere)
For anyone who doesn't know, Rafah is the final city where Gazans have been fleeing to. If I remember correctly it is right on the Egyptian border - the other side of the fence is the Egyptian desert.
I'm not going to add any other commentary as the reality seems to be able to provide it's own.
For those who don't like the Guardian, here's the Jerusalem Post:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has directed the IDF and the defense establishment to bring to the war cabinet a plan for both the evacuation of civilians in the south Gaza city of Rafah and the neutralization of the four Hamas battalions therein, the Prime Minister’s Office stated on Friday.
“It is impossible to achieve the goal of the war to eliminate Hamas and leave four Hamas battalions in Rafa,” the statement said. “Concurrently, it is clear that intensive action in Rafah requires the evacuation of the civilian population from the combat areas.”
Following October 7, Netanyahu seems largely indifferent to collateral consequences. The above statement makes it clear that the aim of eliminating Hamas in Gaza will be pursued to the bitter end.
The effect will be to give birth to reciprocal bitterness and the rebirth of Hamas in some other guise. And I’m pretty sure Israel understands that too. So I guess the pragmatic reasoning behind the aim is to make any neo-Hamas think twice before any repetition of October 7th.
Given current global political realities, the only alternative I can see is a hostage deal and a ceasefire of unspecified duration.. That might be possible to obtain but only if Hamas back off from their present conditions. It could happen but I wouldn’t put money on it.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
I assume they would be moved north away from the combat area. Separating civilians away from the terrorists is a good thing.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
I assume they would be moved north away from the combat area. Separating civilians away from the terrorists is a good thing.
You mean the area already rendered virtually uninhabitable?
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
I assume they would be moved north away from the combat area. Separating civilians away from the terrorists is a good thing.
I heard the Israeli Government spokesman yesterday say that the plan was to move the population north to a place where they can reside in tent encampments.
In other news, the amount of aid reaching Gaza is so low that people are eating grass and animal fodder.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
I assume they would be moved north away from the combat area. Separating civilians away from the terrorists is a good thing.
I heard the Israeli Government spokesman yesterday say that the plan was to move the population north to a place where they can reside in tent encampments.
In other news, the amount of aid reaching Gaza is so low that people are eating grass and animal fodder.
A million displaced people in tents with no proper sanitation.
This isn't how you treat anyone you actually consider to be people. It's how people treat dehumanised populations they despise.
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
It's temporary and not ideal but they would be safer and foreign aid would go to them rather than the terrorists.
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
It's temporary and not ideal but they would be safer and foreign aid would go to them rather than the terrorists.
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
It's temporary and not ideal but they would be safer and foreign aid would go to them rather than the terrorists.
"Not ideal"?
They're already having to operate on people without anaesthetic in Gaza. It's a hellhole already, not just "not ideal".
Can you imagine what it'd be like with a million people in tents?
"Hey, live in this tent, shit in a bucket and drink this grubby water while we bomb your home into the dust".
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
It's temporary and not ideal but they would be safer and foreign aid would go to them rather than the terrorists.
"Not ideal"?
They're already having to operate on people without anaesthetic in Gaza. It's a hellhole already, not just "not ideal".
Can you imagine what it'd be like with a million people in tents?
"Hey, live in this tent, shit in a bucket and drink this grubby water while we bomb your home into the dust".
"Not ideal"
Choh.
The Israelis are intent on eliminating the terrorists. Do you think it would be better for them to remain where they are ?
Even in the best scenario (all the food, medicine, water that they need) they'll be living in tents on on ruins of their previous lives. That's the best scenario.
It's temporary and not ideal but they would be safer and foreign aid would go to them rather than the terrorists.
"Not ideal"?
They're already having to operate on people without anaesthetic in Gaza. It's a hellhole already, not just "not ideal".
Can you imagine what it'd be like with a million people in tents?
"Hey, live in this tent, shit in a bucket and drink this grubby water while we bomb your home into the dust".
"Not ideal"
Choh.
The Israelis are intent on eliminating the terrorists. Do you think it would be better for them to remain where they are ?
Responding with song lyrics may seem trite, but these words aren't.
[...]
Borders soft with refugees
Streets a-swimming with amputees
It’s a Bible or a bullet they put over your heart
It’s getting harder and harder to tell them apart
The days are nights and the nights are long
Beating hearts blossom into walking bombs
And those still looking in the clear, blue sky for a sign
Get missiles from so high they might as well be divine
And now the dogs are howling at your door Singing about vengeance like it’s the joy of the lord
Bringing justice to the enemies, not the other way 'round
They’re guilty where killed and they’re killed where they’re found
If what’s loosed on earth will be loosed up on high
It’s a hell of a heaven we must go to when we die
[...]
The Israelis are intent on eliminating the terrorists. Do you think it would be better for them to remain where they are ?
So I have a couple of questions:
1. If you are an Israeli soldier, how do you know who is a terrorist and who is a civilian just trying not to get killed? When the enemy wears uniforms and forms battle lines, it's easy to tell who they are. When they don't, ...
2. Do you think this experience is likely to make Gazans disposed better or worse towards Israel? Do you think this is likely to create more or less similar terrorism in the future?
If the Israelis were engaging in military operations against the terrorists, whilst simultaneously spearheading a massive humanitarian relief operation for all the displaced Gazans, then perhaps people would buy the idea that Israel was specifically trying to eliminate the terrorists.
Given what Israel is actually doing at the moment, it's difficult to escape the impression that what they are trying to eliminate is not "the terrorists" but "the Gazans". And given the statements from various high-ranking Israeli politicians along the lines of "all Gazans are terrorists", ...
Hi Telford,
this isn't the Hell board so you need to alter your posting style here please.
Repeated one-line style unevidenced assumptions/assertions about people which don't centre their own voices (or reputable reporting which draws on their voices) don't fit with our own voice guidelines in Epiphanies. That can look like Hell-type posting which isn't appropriate here.
According to Reuters, the Sinai Foundation for Human Rights, an activist organisation, published images on Monday it said showed construction trucks and cranes working in the Egyptian area near the Gaza border. It also showed images of concrete barriers.
Citing an unidentified source, the Sinai Foundation said that the construction work was intended to create a secured area in case of a mass exodus of Palestinians.
There's an unpleasant cartoon I've seen several times recently. I'm not going to link to it, but the gist is that Arabs have many states in the ME and are more interested in the one they don't have (Israel) than the ones they do have.
Which I think illustrates some things, I'll leave you to contemplate them with the story of the Nassar family from Bethlehem who bought a local farm in 1916 and have been in legal disputes with the Israeli government for years.
On Gaza my opinion is that this situation is only going to get worse whatever now happens in Rafah
I'm more interested in peace than fighting, but I don't even understand this as a military objective.
Denying a population hospitals is not going to encourage them to somehow overthrow Hamas. What do they (the military planners) think is going to happen? How is this going to release captives and destroy Hamas, never mind bring long-term peace to the region?
Would it stop if the remaining hostages were released?
It’s coming across as if they are hounding people from one place to another and killing them as they go regardless of their condition or age, seeing them all as enemies.
Is this a one-sided ‘war’ in which a whole population will either be eliminated or driven out?
Perhaps they have given up on peace - if they ever held out hope for it.
Repeated one-line style unevidenced assumptions/assertions about people which don't centre their own voices (or reputable reporting which draws on their voices) don't fit with our own voice guidelines in Epiphanies.
Further examples of one-line assertions will lead to your removal from Epiphanies.
Listening to news broadcasts from Al Jazeera (the most popular news source across southern Africa) and the South African news stations, I notice that the term 'Israel' has been dropped and that territory is now only referred to as the Occupied State of Palestine (OSP). A seismic change at grassroots level within a few months, regardless of the hardline stance in the West: despite considerable opposition from Amnesty International, many of its allies (France and the UK) and world powers such as China, the US has vetoed for the third time a UN security council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Thanks. I accept your points. At best, Lindsay Hoyle has lost his way. The protests against Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza are entirely justified. If I implied in any way that I did not believe that, I misrepresented myself.
To make it clear. I was horrified by October 7th but have become more horrified by what has happened in Gaza since.
How are Israel supposed to defeat Hamas without continuing military action. They have to do this because Hamas have vowed to destroy Israel.
I understand the retaliation following October 7th. October 7 was an outrage. The humanitarian cost born by the citizen residents of Gaza is an outrage on a much greater scale, looking at the costs in terms of dead, wounded, and deprivation.
The Hamas threats are not new. Israel has lived with them for years. It has decided to take draconian action following October 7 on the grounds that “enough is enough”. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to declare, re that draconian action, that it has been far more than “enough” in terms of its cost.
It also begs the question as to what "defeating Hamas" involves. Killing all Hamas members seems unlikely, as I would think new members are joining. Israel is a recruiting sergeant for them. I suppose making Gaza uninhabitable is an alternative, Putin style. And the West is helping in this, good grief.
Given that most of the leadership of Hamas aren't even in Gaza or the West Bank, even killing every Hamas militant within Gaza won't destroy Hamas.
Besides, Hamas isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. Destroy Hamas in one place and time and all that will happen is that another organisation with similar aims and methods will replace it. All the Israeli government can hope to achieve is a few years until whatever that new organisation will call itself gets organised and armed.
The problem is a century of Zionist terrorism against Palestinians. The problem is millions of people still living as refugees after being forced from their homes in 1948. The problem is ongoing military occupation of the West Bank and other territories seized by force in 1967, and the continuing incursion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory. The problem is the blockade of Gaza and the restrictions on movement in the occupied territories. The problem is one of the Israeli government's making, and in recent years almost entirely of their making (albeit with support from western governments). The solution to the problem is in their hands, to sit down and talk with representatives of the Palestinian people, and sort out a solution that brings peace and justice to all the people living between the river and the sea. And, then to follow through with that.
Hello posters who have come over from Purgatory. Please don't import posts on this subject that are not consistent with Epiphanies guidelines from other forums .
Can I also remind people to centre the viewpoints and the reporting of those directly affected by the conflict?
The problem is a century of Zionist terrorism against Palestinians. The problem is millions of people still living as refugees after being forced from their homes in 1948. The problem is ongoing military occupation of the West Bank and other territories seized by force in 1967, and the continuing incursion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory. The problem is the blockade of Gaza and the restrictions on movement in the occupied territories. The problem is one of the Israeli government's making, and in recent years almost entirely of their making (albeit with support from western governments). The solution to the problem is in their hands, to sit down and talk with representatives of the Palestinian people, and sort out a solution that brings peace and justice to all the people living between the river and the sea. And, then to follow through with that.
I've said what I've said previously here, I won't rehearse it. But I do think here you are downplaying:
The cafe bombings in Jerusalem
The hijacking of aeroplanes
The killing of olympic athletes
The six-day war
It isn't simply a problem that Israel is an occupying force and that Gazans and West Bank-ers have limited rights.
There has legitimately a hot war going on for decades which in times of relative freedom for people in the WB and Gaza led to the murder of civilians within 1967-Israel.
There is a reason why Israel behaves as it does. And it does nobody any favours to compartmentalise all Palestinians into boxes marked "victim" or "terrorist" without also acknowledging that Israelis have been hurting Palestinians for decades and Palestinians have often been doing their best to return the favour for decades.
It's not a symmetrical war. But it is certainly a war with (at least) two sides. We must never forget this.
That Palestinians have occasionally been in a position to retaliate, with greater or lesser degrees of precision or regard for civilian life, doesn't detract from the fact that they have been driven out of much of their homeland by a combination of colonialism, terrorism and straight-up genocide. Any discussion of "sides" has to acknowledge the fundamentally aggressive position of the occupation of Palestine by Israel. It also has to acknowledge the plight of the Jewish people in the centuries prior to the creation of Israel, but right now it seems like Palestinians are enduring the ongoing punishment for the sins of Europe and Russia. Germany has tried to salve its conscience by unequivocal support for Israel, not recognising that it is simply transferring the harm to another nation. Europe has a moral responsibility, having created the psychological and social conditions for Zionism, to help clear up the mess.
The reality is that the demographics of the dead match the demographics of the region. The killing is in effect completely indiscriminate.
Call me naive, but claiming that you've "only" killed two innocent people to get one supposed terrorist doesn't sound like a great claim anyway. That the reality is far worse is diabolical.
It looks increasingly likely that aid is going to arrive in Gaza by sea, although I can't see how it can possibly be enough for the millions of people there.
My guess, which is really just intuition, is that there will be US military with the aid. Presumably the thinking being that the IDF will not shoot the US military.
The alternative being horrible.
Longer term my view is still one I think wrote here months ago; if Gazans are starving, I suspect there will be increasing pressure to evacuate by sea. Probably to tent cities on the British bases in Cyprus.
Of course, if everyone leaves Gaza then the chances of them all returning become much closer to zero.
Comments
"and where you will be fundamentally unwelcome and unwanted":
(Jamal K Kanj (2010) Children of Catastrophe)
Remember this the next time someone tells you "The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 and it was they who rejected it".
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-pediatricians-two-weeks-inside-a-hospital-in-gaza
Content warning; trauma.
It's worth remembering that they are on good terms with Egypt solely because the west backed a coup that deposed the closest thing to democratic government Egypt has seen in decades.
as an aside, I do wonder how meaningful that is, unless you make clear a spectrum that has 'collusion' at one end and 'King David Hotel' (amongst other things) at the other? Nothing happens in a vacuum.
On the other hand/from another side you'd have a spectrum running from 'collusion' through to 'trying to stop Jewish immigrants getting off the beach when they arrived and attempting to turn around ships all over the Med'.
Depends who's telling the story and what point they're trying to make I guess.
Of the total number of Palestinians affected by the Nakba about half were displaced prior to the British leaving the former Mandate on May 15th 1948.
I'm not sure that speaks to collusion so much as loss of control in the face of proto-Israeli terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
As an aside, my ex-husband's grandfather was in the Royal Navy during WWII (chief petty officer). He intended to remain in the Navy after the war. However he was then put on " stopping Jewish refugees landing in Palestine"duty. He felt so strongly that this was the wrong thing to be doing that he left the navy in c1948.
I can't dig up the references right now, but I believe both Rashid Khalidi and Avi Shlaim have documented collusion; e.g the CO in charge of the forces in Jaffa calls in the leaders of the Israeli militias and telling them that after date X he won't be able to keep order in the city or giving one side preferential access to things like land deeds enabling dispossession and the creation of facts on the ground.
Pardon the delayed response, but I think others have answered you as well as I could, if not better.
I think that turning Israel into America or France or Germany would require catastrophic quantities of violence the likes of which none of us really want to watch. Nation building is a disgusting, idolatrous project of violence. All of us should be ashamed of it, and I think the better hearts in all of these nations are spending a lot of effort trying to clean up the mess we've made. Why add to it?
The question for those of us watching from Africa is whether the US (Biden) will move to strike Iran itself because it has trained and supported proxies. So far Biden (in an election year) has been more reluctant to widen the Israeli-Gaza war into a regional conflict. The axis of resistance or network of Iranian proxies is well-established and includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, a coalition of militias in Iraq known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Houthi forces in Yemen and Iran-linked groups in eastern Syria.
Political analysts from the Middle East (Yezid Saiyigh, Marwan Bishara) have pointed out that the US is unlikely to deter Iran solely by going after its proxies. Iran works with militant proxies in order to claim that it is not responsible for any attacks. In reality, Iran exercises control over some proxies and has considerable influence with others, notably Hezbollah. The Houthis are less under Iranian control, but Iran arms, trains, and funds them.
It's ironic that when Biden's foreign policy record was being examined back in 2020 the excuse would occasionally be trotted out that he'd learnt from his previous experiences but so far there's very little sign of this - as posted up thread previous US presidents - in post during the time Biden has been in politics - have been willing to call for Israel to show restraint.
That said the current set of strikes were well telegraphed, with Sky News Arabia getting a briefing from US intelligence that B1-Bs had just taken off from Lakenheath (UK), so perhaps they hoped to signal limited retaliation or it was the result of a back room deal.
It's somewhat indicative of feelings that the only country in the region willing to sign up to the initial attacks on Yemen was Bahrain (with the Saudi's going so far as mild condemnation).
Which is somewhat ironic given how much time, effort and western weapons Saudi has expended in bombing the shit out of Houthi-held Yemen over the last decade.
Well, since the Yemenese demonstrated the ability to hit their oil refineries they decided peace is the better option, and it's no surprise that they'd prefer to concentrate on Vision 2030 and building the worlds longest city in a desert over stirring that particular regional hornets nest.
Jesus weeps, but it does fuck-all good...
There are particular elements about this story that have made it cross over into Western media, but there's a daily stream of similar occurrences happening in Gaza - of civilians being incapacitated followed by shots at people trying to assist them - to the point where it seems to be the effect of - at the very least - tactical choices.
There is also video evidence of multiple instances of field executions - war crimes at the very least.
https://www.channel4.com/news/israels-evidence-of-unrwa-hamas-allegations-examined
https://www.ft.com/content/e326a1d3-7b45-4609-8179-dfb6a66abae9 (archived here: https://archive.is/pfIvF )
For anyone who doesn't know, Rafah is the final city where Gazans have been fleeing to. If I remember correctly it is right on the Egyptian border - the other side of the fence is the Egyptian desert.
I'm not going to add any other commentary as the reality seems to be able to provide it's own.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/2024-02-09/live-updates-786034
The effect will be to give birth to reciprocal bitterness and the rebirth of Hamas in some other guise. And I’m pretty sure Israel understands that too. So I guess the pragmatic reasoning behind the aim is to make any neo-Hamas think twice before any repetition of October 7th.
Given current global political realities, the only alternative I can see is a hostage deal and a ceasefire of unspecified duration.. That might be possible to obtain but only if Hamas back off from their present conditions. It could happen but I wouldn’t put money on it.
She's been found dead, murdered along with the Red Crescent paramedics who tried to save her. The RC had negotiated access, the IOF knew exactly where they were going and why and then murdered them in cold blood. The bastards.
I read.
No doubt the usual "fog of war" excuses will be trotted out. It speaks at best of the IDF (or indeed as you say, IOF)'s complete lack of concern for Gazan lives, despite Israeli government statements to the contrary.
Which brings me to this plan to evacuate civilians from Rafah. Where too, exactly? There's nowhere left.
I assume they would be moved north away from the combat area. Separating civilians away from the terrorists is a good thing.
You mean the area already rendered virtually uninhabitable?
I heard the Israeli Government spokesman yesterday say that the plan was to move the population north to a place where they can reside in tent encampments.
In other news, the amount of aid reaching Gaza is so low that people are eating grass and animal fodder.
A million displaced people in tents with no proper sanitation.
This isn't how you treat anyone you actually consider to be people. It's how people treat dehumanised populations they despise.
Ok, explain how that works.
"Not ideal"?
They're already having to operate on people without anaesthetic in Gaza. It's a hellhole already, not just "not ideal".
Can you imagine what it'd be like with a million people in tents?
"Hey, live in this tent, shit in a bucket and drink this grubby water while we bomb your home into the dust".
"Not ideal"
Choh.
Responding with song lyrics may seem trite, but these words aren't.
[...]
Borders soft with refugees
Streets a-swimming with amputees
It’s a Bible or a bullet they put over your heart
It’s getting harder and harder to tell them apart
The days are nights and the nights are long
Beating hearts blossom into walking bombs
And those still looking in the clear, blue sky for a sign
Get missiles from so high they might as well be divine
And now the dogs are howling at your door
Singing about vengeance like it’s the joy of the lord
Bringing justice to the enemies, not the other way 'round
They’re guilty where killed and they’re killed where they’re found
If what’s loosed on earth will be loosed up on high
It’s a hell of a heaven we must go to when we die
[...]
-Josh Ritter, Thin Blue Flame, emphasis mine
So I have a couple of questions:
1. If you are an Israeli soldier, how do you know who is a terrorist and who is a civilian just trying not to get killed? When the enemy wears uniforms and forms battle lines, it's easy to tell who they are. When they don't, ...
2. Do you think this experience is likely to make Gazans disposed better or worse towards Israel? Do you think this is likely to create more or less similar terrorism in the future?
If the Israelis were engaging in military operations against the terrorists, whilst simultaneously spearheading a massive humanitarian relief operation for all the displaced Gazans, then perhaps people would buy the idea that Israel was specifically trying to eliminate the terrorists.
Given what Israel is actually doing at the moment, it's difficult to escape the impression that what they are trying to eliminate is not "the terrorists" but "the Gazans". And given the statements from various high-ranking Israeli politicians along the lines of "all Gazans are terrorists", ...
this isn't the Hell board so you need to alter your posting style here please.
Repeated one-line style unevidenced assumptions/assertions about people which don't centre their own voices (or reputable reporting which draws on their voices) don't fit with our own voice guidelines in Epiphanies. That can look like Hell-type posting which isn't appropriate here.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/16/middle-east-crisis-live-israel-gaza-rafah-hamas-biden-cairo-ceasefire-talks-live-news
Which I think illustrates some things, I'll leave you to contemplate them with the story of the Nassar family from Bethlehem who bought a local farm in 1916 and have been in legal disputes with the Israeli government for years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_of_Nations
--
On Gaza my opinion is that this situation is only going to get worse whatever now happens in Rafah
I'm more interested in peace than fighting, but I don't even understand this as a military objective.
Denying a population hospitals is not going to encourage them to somehow overthrow Hamas. What do they (the military planners) think is going to happen? How is this going to release captives and destroy Hamas, never mind bring long-term peace to the region?
It’s coming across as if they are hounding people from one place to another and killing them as they go regardless of their condition or age, seeing them all as enemies.
Is this a one-sided ‘war’ in which a whole population will either be eliminated or driven out?
Perhaps they have given up on peace - if they ever held out hope for it.
If that was the objective, it could have been achieved last year
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
I understand the retaliation following October 7th. October 7 was an outrage. The humanitarian cost born by the citizen residents of Gaza is an outrage on a much greater scale, looking at the costs in terms of dead, wounded, and deprivation.
The Hamas threats are not new. Israel has lived with them for years. It has decided to take draconian action following October 7 on the grounds that “enough is enough”. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to declare, re that draconian action, that it has been far more than “enough” in terms of its cost.
Besides, Hamas isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. Destroy Hamas in one place and time and all that will happen is that another organisation with similar aims and methods will replace it. All the Israeli government can hope to achieve is a few years until whatever that new organisation will call itself gets organised and armed.
The problem is a century of Zionist terrorism against Palestinians. The problem is millions of people still living as refugees after being forced from their homes in 1948. The problem is ongoing military occupation of the West Bank and other territories seized by force in 1967, and the continuing incursion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory. The problem is the blockade of Gaza and the restrictions on movement in the occupied territories. The problem is one of the Israeli government's making, and in recent years almost entirely of their making (albeit with support from western governments). The solution to the problem is in their hands, to sit down and talk with representatives of the Palestinian people, and sort out a solution that brings peace and justice to all the people living between the river and the sea. And, then to follow through with that.
Can I also remind people to centre the viewpoints and the reporting of those directly affected by the conflict?
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I've said what I've said previously here, I won't rehearse it. But I do think here you are downplaying:
The cafe bombings in Jerusalem
The hijacking of aeroplanes
The killing of olympic athletes
The six-day war
It isn't simply a problem that Israel is an occupying force and that Gazans and West Bank-ers have limited rights.
There has legitimately a hot war going on for decades which in times of relative freedom for people in the WB and Gaza led to the murder of civilians within 1967-Israel.
There is a reason why Israel behaves as it does. And it does nobody any favours to compartmentalise all Palestinians into boxes marked "victim" or "terrorist" without also acknowledging that Israelis have been hurting Palestinians for decades and Palestinians have often been doing their best to return the favour for decades.
It's not a symmetrical war. But it is certainly a war with (at least) two sides. We must never forget this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68387864 disappointingly doesn't say this explicitly, but it's self-evidently the case.
The reality is that the demographics of the dead match the demographics of the region. The killing is in effect completely indiscriminate.
Call me naive, but claiming that you've "only" killed two innocent people to get one supposed terrorist doesn't sound like a great claim anyway. That the reality is far worse is diabolical.
My guess, which is really just intuition, is that there will be US military with the aid. Presumably the thinking being that the IDF will not shoot the US military.
The alternative being horrible.
Longer term my view is still one I think wrote here months ago; if Gazans are starving, I suspect there will be increasing pressure to evacuate by sea. Probably to tent cities on the British bases in Cyprus.
Of course, if everyone leaves Gaza then the chances of them all returning become much closer to zero.