Rally for a free Palestine

[Amadeus]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

So what? It was people displaying their displeasure of what is happening in Palestine!!!

Because someone claimed 140. 

[HeliX]

22 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

Because someone claimed 140. 

The other Twitter post that you linked has several times the number of people you claimed were there based on the video. Your estimate is as bad as that one.

[Chinahand]

How to start?

I fervently wish a state of war did not exist between Israel and Gaza, but as I've repeatedly said I'm not surprised at all that such a state of war exists as a result of the deliberate decisions of Hamas. No nation on earth would allow an enemy to remain in power after an act of the scale Hamas committed on 7 October.

Hamas deliberately started a war. That was a choice and has had terrible terrible consequences.

I'm hugely relieved that so far the situation in the West Bank and Lebanon border hasn't resulted in the war spreading.

The settlers' despicable behaviour in the West Bank trying to take advantage of the conflict for their own ends is outright wrong (as are the settlements overall and their ongoing expansion) and I'm glad the US has made that clear sanctioning settler leaders.

I'm not convinced by claims of genocide. I'm seeing a war being fought not that much different to Mariupol, though I do find things like the deliberate destruction of the University, law courts and seat of government very worrying signs.

The casualties are terrible, but too be frank, not excessive for an army level assault on a defended city.

I think it is really important to note Hamas had created massive tank traps with culvert bombs etc and strong defensive positions with its tunnels thinking they could make an Israeli advance very costly. They are also likely inspired by the success of ISIS taking out Turkish German-made Leopard main battle tanks with similar defences and rocket propelled grenades.

I think it is clear the IDF had thought a lot about this and their tactics have shown they've worked out how to nullify Hamas' advantage.

I really want to challenge HeliX etc to explain what Israel was doing when it withdraw from Gaza back in 2005. My understanding was that it was a very genuine attempt to find a path to peace and if Hamas terrorism hadn't been the answer to it there was a reasonable chance that a peaceful settlement could have resulted. Trying to twist it into a bluff would take quite a cynical mindset.

The only way I can see any solution to this is an initial agreement for separation and normalisation. There is no way a single state will emerge without peace coming first and that peace being shown to be enduring over a long period.

My view is  you start with two states and peace between them. People on both sides can then peacefully campaign for a union of these states, but that will not come if the populations of one feel threatened by the other.

Without the ending of the cycle of violence peace will never come and I think the Palestinian side need to understand the reality that Israel isn't going to be violently wiped out. Their political rhetoric of "from the River to the Sea" is a path to failure. Israel will be a reality as long as Jews feel their existence is under threat. Hamas' violence justified by that rhetoric strengthens the political case for Israel's existence. It is only by showing that both communities can live peacefully that reconciliation can come. 

And the record for that is poor on both sides. Doesn't bode well.

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

Hamas deliberately started a war.

https://www.facebook.com/PalestineProjectPage/posts/968207153330394/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/10/stories-from-the-first-intifada-they-broke-my-bones

 

[HeliX]

@Chinahand

I agree with much of the above, but one thing I strongly disagree with is the assertion that Hamas started this war on Oct 7th. You cannot start something that is not currently stopped. There has never been any cessation of the conflict. Gaza was under blockade, settler violence in the WB was ongoing, the IDF consistently raided the Al Aqsa Mosque and beat the shit out of everyone inside. Israel killed thousands of Palestinians every single year, including 30+ thousand in 2018 during the March of Return. Yes, Oct 7th was an escalation, but it did not happen in a vaccuum, and it did not happen in a situation where everything else was hunky dory. It was a reaction to and continuation of the ongoing conflict.

As for what Israel was attempting in 2005, I'm afraid I do view it rather cynically. More than I used to in fact, now that additional policies and intentions have leaked from the Knesset around Israel's plans to create a situation of borderline unlivable poverty in Gaza. Since then, Gaza has been under constant blockade and constant siege.

Could Israel's actions around Gaza and the West Bank ever have lead to another outcome than continued conflict? In my view that'd be asking some superhuman levels of pragmatism from the Gazan people. To watch everyone around you suffer and struggle, and many be killed, your attempts at appeal to the wider community be met with silence, for your attempts at peaceful protest to be met with at best silence and at worst violence... Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[Fred the shred]

Spot on Chinahand Hamas deliberately started a war.    They did not care how it would affect the Palestinian people who are now reporting that Hamas is appropriating any aid that is getting through.    Hamas have been living cheek and jowl with the Palestinian people in Gaza and has probably many supporters amongst them, perhaps not so many now.    As far as the protest went I passed on the bus and doubt if there were more than 70 people who were actually standing around the speaker the rest were passing by.

[Chinahand]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

I strongly disagree with is the assertion that Hamas started this war on Oct 7th.

Oh come on. 

I find this deliberate blindness and that type of mentality is a serious block to solving the crisis. 

Militaries work in the basis of deterrence and escalation. 

Let's shift the focus a little for an informative example: the conflict with Hezbollah on the Israel Lebanon border. 

There is currently an understood modus operandi in the border. Often that is implicit, but you'd be surprised how often communication takes place between belligerents via spies, diplomats and intermediaries. 

Patterns of action and reaction are within known boundaries and so escalation can be constrained. 

It isn't peace but it is bounded and creates a space for politicisation and normalisation.

Hezbollah has very different political aims than Israel and continues to push them via what it says is legitimate violence but that violence is calibrated so as not to cause an escalation. 

Israel deters Hezbollah with its own military actions which are also calibrated to prevent escalation. 

Seeing this playing out at the moment as both sides work through the implications of what is happening in Gaza is fascinating. 

So coming back to Gaza. There wasn't peace but there were bounded limits to the action reaction cycle to stop escalation. If Hamas did A or Israel B a calibrated response would maintain the status quo. 

To say Hamas didn't entirely shred this status quo on October 7th is to be willfully blind. 

It was a deliberate planned escalation. 

To try to claim Hamas didn't proactively escalate violence is wrong. 

And let me also say this. Yes, Bibi was provocative in the UN but he wasn't militarily escalating, he was crowing that a non violent political process was making progress with Arab states. Why? Because Arab states have increasingly rejected the absolutist violence of Hamas as being counterproductive and hence were willing to advance an outward first normalisation process. 

It really says something that Hamas' reaction to this was a huge escalation in violence. 

I very strongly disagree this was justifiable or that it wasn't massively escalatory. 

The only reason Gaza is the way it is today is because Hamas' actions on October 7th. If they hadn't done what they did Israel would not have mobilised and Gazans wouldn't have been displaced. 

Hamas acted because their violent rejectionist approach was losing support to a wider non-violent international process. 

HeliX genuinely are you sure you want to side with Hamas in claiming legitimacy in rejecting this process in favour of escalation on October 7th?

October 7th is a big deal and just saying it's just a part of the same old same old of the Palestinian Israeli conflict is in my view highly misguided. 

I hope it was the last failed desperate bid of the violent rejectionists and a more pragmatic approach will result from Hamas' defeat which understands Israel cannot be wiped out of existence. 

 

[HeliX]

45 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

To try to claim Hamas didn't proactively escalate violence is wrong. 

I didn't. My post explicitly says they did.

[TheTeapot]

That old 'you're either with us or youre with the terrorists' argument again. I would have thought Chinahand was above it tbh.

[Shake me up Judy]

Another great post Chinahand but you won't convince Helix with rational facts, necessary pragmatism and realpolitik. He's immune to all that, cocooned by theory. His ideological model is founded on the idea of the injustice or 'original sin' of 1948 and nothing can change that until the day of liberation and peace to all men. He's even quoting slogans from the Great Leap Forward. It's that tired old Marxist dialectic; the scientific history of structural victim and oppressor, action and reaction, imposed on an ancient conflict. It gives 'freedom fighters' like Hamas and Hezbollah a moral free pass to commit any atrocity or act of mass murder. The injustice is never theirs.

The Woke movement has added fuel to the fire with buckets of emotion, hand-wringing, indignation and virtue. Most of them haven't the first clue what they're even protesting about. It just seems the right thing to do and a blow for the weak against the powerful. How can that be wrong ?     

Edited December 10, 2023 by Shake me up Judy

[Chinahand]

22 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

That old 'you're either with us or youre with the terrorists' argument again. I would have thought Chinahand was above it tbh.

No, quite the opposite ... I'm asking for arguments which are pro Palestinian which do not support Hamas. I think that is a far better place to make your case. 

Hamas HAS brought disaster for the people of Gaza. 

They have responsibility for their actions. 

I don't think it is a good argument to deny that or try to explain it away and will call that out when I see it. 

Repudiate Hamas, acknowledge Israel's right to exist and don't tie yourself into defending extremism. 

I don't support settlers don't support religious extremism and am in favour of secularism.

I will argue against attempts to remove Hamas' responsibility for the disaster they have brought upon the people of Gaza. 

[HeliX]

8 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

No, quite the opposite ... I'm asking for arguments which are pro Palestinian which do not support Hamas. I think that is a far better place to make your case. 

Hamas HAS brought disaster for the people of Gaza. 

They have responsibility for their actions. 

I don't think it is a good argument to deny that or try to explain it away and will call that out when I see it. 

Repudiate Hamas, acknowledge Israel's right to exist and don't tie yourself into defending extremism. 

I don't support settlers don't support religious extremism and am in favour of secularism.

I will argue against attempts to remove Hamas' responsibility for the disaster they have brought upon the people of Gaza. 

Adding context doesn't remove responsibility. It is important to acknowledge Israel's role in perpetuating the current situation as changes to that behaviour are necessary for progress.

[HeliX]

12 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

He's even quoting slogans from the Great Leap Forward

No I'm not.

If you're not indignant at Israel's lies and murder then you're not human, frankly.

I have stated many times that what Hamas did is wrong.

1948 was a grave injustice. I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that. It's important because if you want peace then there has to be some remediation for what happened.

[TheTeapot]

I once again offer to the forum this short, 90 second cartoon, from 2009.

 

[Chinahand]

Deep-beath, once more unto the breach. 

One other point I want to challenge Helix on. 

Zionism as anti-Semitism. 

No. 

Jews have been exiled multiple times from their cultural focus - the city of Jerusalem and its hinterland. 

The aspiration to return is echoed out of their religion, literature and folk memory over millennia. 

Jews have desired to return and re-establish their sovereignty from the time of the destruction of the temple by the Romans and for them to be able to maintain cultural continuity in the face of terrible violence over millennia is an incredible testimony to cultural resilience. 

There is nothing anti-Semitic about Jews wanting to return to their origin.

Now, did antisemites use Zionism as a justification to expel and seize the property of Jews.

Yes, definitely, but that in no way de-legitimises Jewish desires to return and once again I find HeliX's inability to understand this concerning.