gaza conflict

[Puja]

Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

He’s not going to say boo, nor will he do squat because that’s his strategy. Don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t alienate anyone. If he comes out in support of the Palestinians, it’ll be “oh, what’s with the anti-semitism, Kier?” If he supports Israel, it’ll be “oh, what, you support an Apartheid state while hating on Muslims?” Homeboy saw what happened to Jez, he was there. If he stays quiet, you can’t pin shit to him.

Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

He’s not going to say boo, nor will he do squat because that’s his strategy. Don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t alienate anyone. If he comes out in support of the Palestinians, it’ll be “oh, what’s with the anti-semitism, Kier?” If he supports Israel, it’ll be “oh, what, you support an Apartheid state while hating on Muslims?” Homeboy saw what happened to Jez, he was there. If he stays quiet, you can’t pin shit to him.

Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

[Puja]

Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

I don't know if he does have the latitude that you suggest. Mud sticks and "Labour are anti-semitic" is a smear that will linger in the public consciousness, waiting for an example to reignite the fire. Plus, for the politically uninformed, the Gaza narrative has been presented in a very black and white way. It's either "We stand with Israel" or "Supporting the terrorists." All very well saying, "those aren't the supporter he wants," but their vote has the same value as yours or mine. More value, in fact, based on where I live.

I'm not saying he's morally right in the slightest, nor even that it's necessarily the right long term political decision. But he is, as always, plotting the safest course to power.

On the Muslim vote, it's the same as the left-wing vote, or the socially liberal vote, or the youth vote - he's hoving two degrees less awful than the Tories and daring us/them to not vote for him and effectively vote for the Conservatives. No wonder there's no hint of a chance of electoral reform.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

This thing is so fucked I can't remember the circumstances as to how 30k Palestinians were killed in 2018, living through this horrendous cycles of violence as a child............

What will the 2023 figure be 100k?

No, it's not that bad (I thought that at first), the red bars are the injured. The deaths are much lower.

However, this year is going off the scale.

Just to be clear though, the historical deaths really are roughly 95% or 20x higher on the Palestinian side (as are the injuries). For the current, massively increased killing the deaths are at least 10x higher for Palestinians, and pushing closer to the historical ratio on a daily basis.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

I don't know if he does have the latitude that you suggest. Mud sticks and "Labour are anti-semitic" is a smear that will linger in the public consciousness, waiting for an example to reignite the fire. Plus, for the politically uninformed, the Gaza narrative has been presented in a very black and white way. It's either "We stand with Israel" or "Supporting the terrorists." All very well saying, "those aren't the supporter he wants," but their vote has the same value as yours or mine. More value, in fact, based on where I live.

I'm not saying he's morally right in the slightest, nor even that it's necessarily the right long term political decision. But he is, as always, plotting the safest course to power.

On the Muslim vote, it's the same as the left-wing vote, or the socially liberal vote, or the youth vote - he's hoving two degrees less awful than the Tories and daring us/them to not vote for him and effectively vote for the Conservatives. No wonder there's no hint of a chance of electoral reform.

Puja

Any decent politician should be able to make a case given the horrendous number of children being killed on a daily basis.

But then he isn't really a very effective politician. He's just good at manoeuvring himself upwards within an organization.

All very sad.

[Puja]

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

I don't know if he does have the latitude that you suggest. Mud sticks and "Labour are anti-semitic" is a smear that will linger in the public consciousness, waiting for an example to reignite the fire. Plus, for the politically uninformed, the Gaza narrative has been presented in a very black and white way. It's either "We stand with Israel" or "Supporting the terrorists." All very well saying, "those aren't the supporter he wants," but their vote has the same value as yours or mine. More value, in fact, based on where I live.

I'm not saying he's morally right in the slightest, nor even that it's necessarily the right long term political decision. But he is, as always, plotting the safest course to power.

On the Muslim vote, it's the same as the left-wing vote, or the socially liberal vote, or the youth vote - he's hoving two degrees less awful than the Tories and daring us/them to not vote for him and effectively vote for the Conservatives. No wonder there's no hint of a chance of electoral reform.

Puja

Any decent politician should be able to make a case given the horrendous number of children being killed on a daily basis.

But then he isn't really a very effective politician. He's just good at manoeuvring himself upwards within an organization.

All very sad.

I'd say he's a very effective politician, especially in the current political system. Just not a decent human being.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Anything could be happening in gaza now and we wouldn't know, that's scary out here must be terrifying in gaza. Unnamed sources saying 2 fuel trucks will be let in.

[paddy no 11]

Situation continues to deteriorate, they'll be pushed to Rafah and into to sinai, those that are still alive, a lot of them will be dead if there's a serious disease outbreak

I'm numbed watching Channel 4 news, I'm limiting it to every 2nd night so it's very depressing

[paddy no 11]

March in London Saturday, hopefully it's big and hopefully there's a football match on to keep the fascists away

[Son of Mathonwy]

March in London Saturday, hopefully it's big and hopefully there's a football match on to keep the fascists away

Yeah, the fascists kept away. I guess they didn't mind as we weren't messing with 'their' armistice day. Luckily the rain stayed away too .

Meanwhile the US vetoes the UN on the ceasefire resolution and the UK (using what amoral calculus I cannot imagine), chooses to abstain on the vote.

And the Labour party, while saying some sensible and fine things, still cannot bring itself to call for a ceasefire. (I have emailed my local, Labour, MP on the matter.)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gs-in-gaza

[Puja]

Israel's ambassador has today ruled out Britain's suggestion of the two-state solution, saying "Absolutely no" and "The Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel."

...what exactly does he see as being the endpoint of the situation then? Someone needs to be blunt with him and ask what the fuck the long-term ideal is, if it's not a two-state solution. Make him say out loud that the end point is wiping Palestine off the map.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Israel's ambassador has today ruled out Britain's suggestion of the two-state solution, saying "Absolutely no" and "The Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel."

...what exactly does he see as being the endpoint of the situation then? Someone needs to be blunt with him and ask what the fuck the long-term ideal is, if it's not a two-state solution. Make him say out loud that the end point is wiping Palestine off the map.

Puja

This is evidence of genocide. It's a clear indication of the intent to destroy Palestine, ie the mental element of the crime of genocide. Israel is already performing at least 3 of the 5 acts, any of which constitutes the physical element of the crime.

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

[paddy no 11]

The blatant murders are coming thick and fast now, amongst the general murder of this "war"

There not even trying to hide it now since they outed themselves killing 3 hostages. Bulldozing patients outside a hospital, snipers shooting people in churches, didn't the world go to when these things were happening in little ol Belgium

Serbia was bombed for this sort of stuff by nato?

[Son of Mathonwy]

The blatant murders are coming thick and fast now, amongst the general murder of this "war"

There not even trying to hide it now since they outed themselves killing 3 hostages. Bulldozing patients outside a hospital, snipers shooting people in churches, didn't the world go to when these things were happening in little ol Belgium

Serbia was bombed for this sort of stuff by nato?

If they can kill 3 unarmed Israelis carrying a white flag (even chasing the third into a building and executing him despite his pleas in Hebrew), imagine how many unarmed Palestinians they've killed.

Meanwhile the US continues to give them billions of $-worth of arms to continue the massacre. I'm not sure the UK is giving any weapons away but we're certainly selling them as much as we can. And our position is still against a permanent ceasefire. As is the Labour party's (although I and thousands of other emailers have convinced my Labour MP to change his position and support an immediate ceasefire. Small victories but it's progress).

I read than the number of women and children dead exceeds all civilian deaths in Ukraine.

[Son of Mathonwy]

An interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... gaza-essay

[Son of Mathonwy]

A culture being erased by bombs and bulldozers:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-identity

[morepork]

This is a horrible reckless abomination. I've run out of motivation for platitude. Just fuck.

[Son of Mathonwy]

As much of the world is distracted by Christmas, Israel plans a genocidal move to flood tunnels under Gaza, potentially ruining its water supply and agriculture:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... aza-expert

[Son of Mathonwy]

The latest in Gaza, 22,835 dead, now very nearly 20 Palestinians killed for every 1 by Hamas (which is standard ratio for the whole of the occupation). This is worth reading for the other numbers:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... on-in-gaza

[Son of Mathonwy]

It seems the UK can recognise genocide, especially when children are particularly affected, just not in Gaza:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/ja ... before-icj

[Son of Mathonwy]

Just back from the big march in London. Plenty of people there despite the cold.

[paddy no 11]

Well played South Africa

Those fucking idiots in Germany have been shown up big time

Keir starmer be squirming

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is a victory but the press aren't portraying it as such. They're making out that since the court doesn't literally call for a ceasefire, it's a bit ambiguous.

The first statement is:

The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in
accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza,
take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article
II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of
Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a
group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with
immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.

That is an instruction for Israel to stop killing, wounding or mentally harming Palestinians in Gaza. Not reasonable measures, ALL measures. That's only possible if military action ceases. That's a ceasefire.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/f ... -00-en.pdf

But according to the BBC:

The court did not call for a ceasefire.

Instead, judges kept the provisional measures within what’s required by states that have signed up to the genocide convention - Israel has consistently said it is acting in accordance with international law.

And yet, its is being interpreted as a victory for those who supported South Africa's case, insofar as the ICJ found it did have jurisdiction, and decided there was a plausible case under the genocide convention.

It also said that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-6 ... type=share

And even the Guardian is a bit vague about it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -talks-cia

[Son of Mathonwy]

Basically, the crime of genocide occurs when both the mental part (ie the intent) and the physical part (ie the killing, wounding, mentally harming, starving etc) occur.

It's a matter of fact that several of the physical elements are occuring eg even the Israelis wouldn't deny that they are killing Palestinians. The only question is whether the mental element exists.

The interim judgement is that the physical part must cease (ie ALL measures must be taken to prevent it) while the court takes its time to look at the mental aspect.

This is not the same as merely requiring that Israel complies with the Genocide Convention* (because that allows for killing etc as long as the mental element is not present (which they will always maintain is the case - in court at least)).

This is saying that Israel must stop the physical side of it right now. That's a ceasefire.

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml


* as the BBC are claiming.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bizarre reaction from the press. For most of them to be taking a supposedly even-handed view of it is no surprise, but even the Guardian and Channel 4 News are taking the line that the ICJ hasn't actually called for a ceasefire so Israel has wriggle room.

The ICJ ruling orders Israel to immediately stop its military from taking any action which would kill or wound Gazan Palestinians. Any further killings or woundings are breaches of international law as a matter of fact. No distinguishing between Hamas and civilians. No call for proportionate or reasonable levels of harm. No allowance for self-defense.

No killing or wounding at all.

If the US and the UK do not demand that Israel complies with this, it is no different than them ignoring a judgement of genocide against Israel (which may well come, down the road). No different to Putin ignoring the pronouncements of the ICC or ICJ.

I'm fairly sure the UK has chosen its side, and will stick with Israel, right or wrong. But for even the left-leaning press to go along with this is bizarre. Group-think, perhaps? Fear of really breaking ranks? Stupidity?

Weird.