Hi, they don’t seem to get much right these days but on Gaza Medialens are on the ball:
This is also an interesting perspective on the “condemn Hamas as a terrorist group”:
cheers
2 Likes
Thanks, CJ.
Obviously, Morgan is a top-flight horror - but imo Corbyn was useless in that encounter - huffing and puffing like an exasperated teenager. It should be clear by now that Hamas does not operate with the best outcomes for Gazans in mind. It was long apparent that Hamas was enabled by Israel - but I think we may have been duped into believing that whilst flawed, Hamas was fighting for Palestinian betterment. Certainly my view of Hamas shifted radically after 7 Oct - - there’s simply no way that they could have opened fully 7 fronts into Israel, using bulldozers, hang gliders and golf buggies - given that which we know about Israel’s ultra-monitored border with Gaza, surely Hamas’ breach was an impossibility. We need to confront the possibility that Hamas has been in cahoots with Israel all along.
I fully recommend this conversation on The Higherside Chat between Greg Carlwood and Joe Atwill -[THC]-(Joe Atwill | Inexplicable Facts, Masonic Manipulations & the Converso Cabal • The Higherside Chats) it’s a brilliant breakdown of 7 Oct and the Hamas/Israel dynamic in general. Atwill makes some observations that had never dawned here, but upon reflection seem to raise stark red flags - notably, Atwill queries that in view of the obviously psychopathic treatment by Israel of Palestinians, and given the vast historic and documentary record attesting to that grossly inhuman conduct, why then has Hamas never launched a worldwide appeal to garner support abroad for the historic injustice? Instead all we see is periodic flare-ups with rocket barrages that always presage demented forays into Gaza under the Dahiya Doctrine, and resultant carnage. Given the scope of 7 Oct it was entirely predictable that Israel would go balls-out in its ‘response’. Now, can anybody honestly say that Hamas was truly acting in the interests of Gazans? Might there be a case for arguing that not only is Hamas a ‘terrorist group’, its actions more or less place it as a group that is terrorising Gazans.
With that in mind - going back to Corbyn’s performance against Morgan. You would have thought by now that Corbyn would at least be a tad savvy to how such an encounter might play-out - Corbyn needed to condemn Hamas’ actions outright (no point getting into the vagaries of Hamas origins etc) - that would have robbed Morgan of his clincher - Corbyn, or anybody for that matter, needs to steer the discussion around to the occupation of Palestine - it’s the UK gov official position that Palestine is occupied, so elucidating on what that occupation looks like for Palestinians ought to be paramount - and there is a vast documentary record which can be cited - at a minimum, foregrounding the work of the Israeli human rights group BTselem should be a reflex.
2 Likes
No-one in the West would report Hamas apart from one or two tiny publications but at the same time support for Palestinians has been pushed worldwide for a long time by sites like Electronicintafada and many others. Reporting of Hamas could be regarded as supporting Hamas - a proscribed terrorist organisation in many countries- making it unlikely.
I haven’t had time to listen to the whole conversation but so far I am more inclined towards Scott Ritter’s analysis - an astonishingly successful military action by Hamas which Israel used by quickly turning it around in PR terms as an Isis-type terror attack to justify ( in their eyes ) genocide against the whole of Gaza.
cheers
2 Likes
Hi NewSi
I have no trouble "honestly say"ing that the Palestinian Authority does not truly act in the interests of Palestinians. Who does that leave? Would you “honestly say” that the armed resistance groups in Europe in the 1940s were not acting in the interests of their communities on the grounds that the Nazis would inflict collective punishment on civilians for acts of resistance by the few?
Why should anyone, never mind failed politicians, be obliged to condemn acts of armed resistance to brutal military occupation?
And, for heaven’s sake, why would a group of people from the occupying power, presumably living where they live courtesy of the 1948 Nakba, be a suitable recourse for Palestinians and their supporters? Do the Palestinian people themselves get to have any agency? (Has that not been the problem for some time now?)
1 Like
Thanks, CJ.
I’ve only started to consider this recently so I can’t say I have a highly developed take on this matter. Hamas, as far as I can discern, achieved their popular support amongst Palestinians on the back of some bold moves, such as calling an end to attacks within Israel (bus bombs and the like) - that is to say, the original appeal of Hamas was its seeming desire to take a different approach - - this in turn had the knock-on effect of reducing Israel’s excuses to launch ‘responses’ - - as we know, violence begets violence - whether or not the violence might be said to be righteous is immaterial - - and given the overwhelming asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians, the latter will never prevail with violence. I fully appreciate that the ‘rockets’ are for the most part ineffective, they seldom reach a ‘target’ - mostly just landing in desert - and are said to be akin to a calling card from Palestine to the world saying, ‘Hello, we’re still here, and we’re still being oppressed’. When such ineffective fizzbangs are met with ‘incursions’ that claim thousands of lives, there must come a time when the leadership reappraises its tactics.
Because the reporting in the west almost always frames Israel as a plucky little David in a sea of Goliaths, any violence from Palestinians is amplified, presented as an existential threat to Israel, and thus Israel is given free rein to continue ‘shooting and crying’. We’re now 78 or so years into this nightmare and I think a more savvy resistance might by now have conjured a more effective means of garnering support from abroad. Yes, it’s true that under tenets of ‘international law’ the Palestinians are justified in armed resistance, but given the imbalanced reporting, their violent resistance is always cited as the catalyst for Israeli violence. It can’t be said enough, Palestine will not be freed through violence. Total renunciation of violence may have proved a better response - with a solid record of passive resistance, Palestinians, or whichever group represents them would maybe have been able to garner greater sympathy abroad - - the fact that they didn’t pursue such a path lends plenty of ammo to those western players that would leap at the opportunity to proscribe Palestinian reps as a ‘terrorist group’.
Look, I feel awful sitting here, writing this shit knowing about the immense suffering in Gaza and the West Bank - like I’m saying, ‘just keep quiet, keep your head down, and maybe, just maybe something might come good for you’. It’s a wretched situation. But I do believe that Hamas has been a disaster for Gazans, but something of a boon for Israel - - I mean look now, fewer than 20 years since their withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is back in occupation of the Northern part - it’s highly unlikely that it will ever be returned…are you kidding…all that lovely black stuff ripe for the pumping just off shore.
As for 7 Oct and the Ritteresque take - I just don’t buy it at all. Given all we know about Israel, it’s ‘intelligence’, the ‘IDF’, its super-sensitive border surveillance tech and whatever else it has up its sleeve to deter cross-border attacks, I find it too incredible that everything failed simultaneously. As Joe Atwill is at pains to stress in that THC interview, it was all way too inexplicable.
Cheers
Cheers, Alan.
I think all violence should be condemned.
That said, I appreciate that there are times when violence may be unavoidable. Please see my reply to CJ above for more on how successful for Palestinians has been armed resistance.
The Palestinians are now in their 8th decade of having to endure the daily horrors inflicted by a merciless foe - which, as ghastly as it is, finds favour amongst western governments - - clearly, the western governments are themselves ghastly.
I understand the occupation is ‘brutal’ - I also understand that the brutality rises exponentially when met with any resistance, let alone armed resistance.
I take it this refers to my comment about BTSelem. PCHR would be preferable - it’s a better and more thorough source, but I think the Israeli group might more readily find favour in a west that, as a consequence of decades of propaganda, has a less favourable view of Palestinians. That’s the only reason I cited them in that context.
Cheers
Thanks for your response @NewSi , Palestine has been between a rock and a hard place for decades and it hasn’t been helped by any of its leaders or leading groups looking at the results so far. But peace has been tried numerous times and Israel replies with more violence - a bit like Israel’s anti-semitism attacks, if the accused apologises ( even if there was no anti-semitism) then the ADL loads more on the accused!
I like a lot of Alastair Crooke’s material so far:
- the conclusion in his latest:
"As the Israeli mood swings Biblical, so the global majority’s anger rises. And so Muslims come to see the crisis as an uncompromising civilisational war – The West versus ‘us’.
The concomitant two conferences – the Arab League and the OIC (held concurrently in Riyadh) – underlined the complete collapse of “Israel’s” image across the Islamic world. The outpouring of anger and passion was palpable, and is metamorphosing new global politics.
In the West, the anger is splintering mainstream political structures, and causing wide convulsion. Global protests are massive.
Thus, as “Israel” swings towards a Biblical “Greater Israel”, the Islamic world turns increasingly uncompromising. Though the conferences did not agree on any action-plan, the image of President Raisi sitting next to MbS; and that both Presidents Erdogan and Assad were co-mingling at the conference, was arresting.
The strategic implication is stark: Israelis now abjure the risks of living with Muslims, and the sentiment is fully reciprocated by Palestinians towards Hebraic zealotry. The old paradigm for a political solution is rendered obsolete."
If you combine the above with the economic disaster in Israel we could be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole of Israel!
cheers
“. . .the Israeli group might more readily find favour in a west that, as a consequence of decades of propaganda, has a less favourable view of Palestinians.”
Nobody in ‘(the) west’ has the remotest desire to give any credence to such as B’Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, ICAHD, Machsom Watch, Gush Shalom, Breaking the Silence or any of the tiny groups of high-minded people who have no influence whatsoever on the public discourse in Israel. (We remember well talking to a nice old Machsom watch woman at the Huwarra checkpoint 16 years ago, asking her about the strength of Israel’s peace movement. She started listing people’s names, using her fingers.)
We (M & I) have heard, over the decades, any number of sanctimonious demands for the dramatic intervention of the ‘Palestinian Ghandi’. There have been potentially thousands of them (look up Razan Al Najjar’s New York Times interview and check out what became of her): those who aren’t dead are locked up.
When European Jews first began to (surreptitiously) colonise Palestine they were not despised, they were often assisted, by the people who lived there, of whatever religion. When DPs from Europe, ex-camps, arrived in Jaffa there were some who were taken into Palestinian homes because those Palestinians were not ignorant of recent European history and thought they shared a common humanity. How effing ironic was that? (The Jewish militias ‘rescued’ them from their hosts at gunpoint). Old-fashioned, naive, often religiously-motivated hospitality cuts no ice with the Zionists.
The project is not complete yet, the Zionists want the (rest of) the land without the people. Those people have known it for ages, just as they know they’ve nothing to lose. They’ve been exercising non-violent resistance every day of their lives just by staying alive, never mind the humiliations and provocations undergone during just about any simple journey, any dealing with authority. That’s on the West Bank of course where the killings and expulsions are quietly being boosted up. No international support will save the Palestinians, no appeals to conscience, to law, to morality, or to human solidarity because practically all governments, politicians and media have been bought and paid for by the same psychopaths who finance Israel.
1 Like
After Corbyn’s response to ‘anti-semitism in the Liabour Party’ it was pretty obvious the guy was useless. When one has principles on really important issues, the only approach (IMHO), is to face up. Speak the truth and to hell with the consequences. It’s Corbyn’s weakness that gets him invited on instead of someone like Chris Williamson.
Exactly. But I would say, every time one is confronted by ‘Do you condemn Hamas’, or ‘they are a terrorist organisation’ the conversation doesn’t need to be steered. It needs to be said upfront. After three quarters of a century of home theft, forced exile, theft of water, illegal restrictions on fishing rights, all the random killings and detention without trial even for minors, not to mention the occupation of the land of three adjoining countries, continued expansion of illegal settlements and oblivion to two UN resolutions, it’s hardly surprising the natives get restless.
As for Hamas, my opinion for what it’s worth, is that they were the elected government in 2006, with many international observers on the ground including an ex-US President. Their conclusion publicly reaffirmed by George Bush junior (not that anyone would believe a friggin word he says) was the elections were free and fair. The PLO led by that traitor to the Palestinians Mahmoud Abbas refused to let them take power. Like Marmite, you can love them or hate them, but unless one has experienced 75 years of hate filled ethnic cleansing, one hardly has the right to be overly critical.
To end, I have a great deal of respect for Scott Ritter. However, he surely must know better that the hole wall blowing up stinks at best. I haven’t heard him say anything about the smell.
1 Like
Hi folks, I hadn’t really appreciated the ease with which any organisation can be “proscribed” as a terrorist organisation under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 - the list in Schedule 2 of the Act is just the start - the Secretary of State can issue an order adding any other to the list and this process (unlike statutory instruments) does not involve Parliament as it is delegated to the Minister of State.
Terrorism Act , section
"3 Proscription.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an organisation is proscribed if—
(a)it is listed in Schedule 2, or
(b)it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule.
(2)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in Schedule 2 if its entry is the subject of a note in that Schedule.
(3)The Secretary of State may by order—
(a)add an organisation to Schedule 2;
(b)remove an organisation from that Schedule;
(c)amend that Schedule in some other way.
(4)The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism."
- is it surprising that Medialens points out that no “friends” of the UK Gov are ever proscribed!
Once some group is proscribed then all sorts or goodies can be used by plod to stick innocents behind bars.
- Of course as with all of the Rule of Claw no-one knows this stuff at the time they are committing any acts ( in most cases these UK laws incriminate anyone in the world doing anything in the world )- it will only be by accident that they are excluded because they are journos or because they are conducting academic research. The failure to realise could cost you 15 years in gaol!
But glancing at the TAct 2000 the whole thing is a minefield for innocents - as we should expect under this Fascist State!
cheers