I've noticed that the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt is often described as "closed", rather than "closed by", as though it had a mysterious mind of its own. Which of course it doesn't. For example yer Beeb sayeth: "the Rafah border crossing (from Gaza into Egypt) is today closed" but doesn't say whodunnit. A bit later they say "Rafah border crossing is still closed this morning. Hamas say they want more injured people to be allowed out of Gaza through the crossing before more foreign citizens are allowed to leave" which would imply that it is Hamas that is keeping people prisonner in Gaza; if so, it isn't clear why yer Beeb wouldn't just say so. Instead of endless flows of repetitious "news" I'd kinda like it if they could get their reporters to actually find out who is keeping it shut; it would appear quite important.While we're on this, yer Beeb also say War crime claims: Volker Türk, the UN commissioner for human rights... Some context: The rules for war, which are spelt out in the Geneva Conventions, prohibit hostage taking, and say countries engaged in conflict "may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory". But this isn't right. The actual text is Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand (my bold). Omitting the final qualifier is dishonest. By contrast, taking of hostages is unequivocally a crime.
I also have a hard time taking displacing people quite as seriously as the "war crime" people do. I'm sure these people don't want to be displaced, and neither would I, but it is a far less serious matter than deliberately killing civilians. I'd rather be displaced a hundred times than killed once.
Since I've been tasteless enough to use the image I have: I think the recent habit of prolonging wars is bad, and it is better to let one side win. Hence calls for ceasefires or pauses1 in the Israel-Hamas war don't make sense and will likely lead to greater suffering. Also, per Hobbes, you're only allowed to rebel if you have a realistic chance of succeeding.
Update: What is happening at Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital and why?
The Graun is fairly typical of the abysmal state of reporting. Hamas, and carefully selected doctors at the hospital, swear blind that there are no Hamas in there. Oooohhh no indeed not. And yet mysteriously the Israelis are finding it hard to get in. Why don't they just walk in by the front door? For the obvious reason: the Hamas folk inside would shoot at them. Why isn't this obvious to the Graun and a great many other people? Because the bias of their world view is so strong2.
2023/11/15: the stupidity of some of the old fat white dead men is... well, I'd like to say astonishing, but in fact I'll say entirely predictable. For example, from the FT: International aid agencies expressed alarm at the Israeli incursion into al-Shifa. “Hospitals are not battlegrounds,” said Martin Griffiths, the UN aid chief. “The protection of newborns, patients, medical staff and all civilians must override all other concerns.” FFS you clown: it is definitely not true that "The protection of all civilians must override all other concerns", you know this very well, its part of the "rulez" of war. But more importantly, once the Israelis are in there, the patients and staff and evacuees are all safe, as long as Hamas doesn't shoot them.
Al-Jazmagi has a go at answering "Why is Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital so important for the Israeli army?" in a way that avoids the obvious answer: they propound the symbol-of-resistance type narrative. But this is a dubious idea, and even they are forced to answer "Hamas", although they do it right at the end in the hope you won't read that far.
Update: forced relocation
People in warm safe comfortable houses like the UN hate what they call forced relocation; e.g. this press release. But what do Gazans on the ground think? We don't need to ask them, because we can see the walls that the Egyptians are building, so the answer is clear: they would very much like to relocate.
Notes
1. As if to prove me wrong, The US says Israel will begin to implement four-hour military pauses in areas of northern Gaza each day to allow civilians to flee. But firstly, that text is deceptive: the "pauses" referred will not "begin", they have already begun, and had when I wrote the above. The US is saying that for its own internal political reasons, post-announcing something already happening as though it was a success of theirs. A brief apuse such as that, over a route out, does indeed make sense. Note that there isn't the least hint of a response from Hamas, who offer no corresponding pause in their own fighting.
2. (belatedly: 2024/04): Al-Shifa Hospital and the crisis of the West - Spiked (arch).
Refs
* My comment at Jus in Bello by David Henderson. To which (2023/11/21) a belated followup here: given that innocent Palestinians and Israelis are morally equivalent (modulo slight quibbles about Hamas only being able to survive because it has popular support), then the Israeli hostages should not be the Israel's primary concern (prompted by this which suggests secondary-is-bad); just as they accept some regrettable civilian Palestinian deaths, they accept some regrettable Israeli civilian deaths.
* The two-state solution is still best. Actually I think allowing the Pals to emigrate is best, but no-one seems to like that; possibly not even the Pals themselves, so trapped are they in their grievances.
* Arf: Turkish MP who collapsed after saying Israel will ‘suffer Allah’s wrath’ dies.
27 comments:
Ok, if you don't like what the beeb and the G report, where do you get your truth from and why do you accept (you do?) what Israel says is the truth? Maybe they are one and the same.
Hamas are nasty, murderous bits of work. Not the IRA, not ISIS but close. But, I see dead people as dead people (you can't be more dead than being dead, can you?) and by that measure the Palastinians (as ever?) are coming off worse. But, maybe that isn't the truth? What say you?
Me? I'd happily see the world rid of Hamas and the likes of Netanyahu, Israeli politicians handing out arms to extremist West Bank settlers (or is that not true too?) and I'd quite like there to be a place where both Israelis and Palastinians can live side by side without continued killings and discrimination.
Actually, I'd be happy to be rid of all religious fundamentalists. They just can't see beyond their truth.
I don't think there are any good sources; my complaint is that the reporting is bad. I patch together reports from various newspapers, Xitter, whatever.
As you say, the Palestinians are coming off worse. Therefore, in any sane world, they would be the people making offers for a settlement. In all the reportage I see, though, it is Israel that is being pressed. Fundamentally, the Palestinians hafve lost and need to surrender. Continuing fighting after you have lost is irresponsible.
If the Palestinians simply surrender, lay down their weapons, they would very quickly have a much better quality of life, and their children would have happier lives if they stopped teaching them hate. OTOH, they would have lost their "honour". Perhaps they genuinely value that above drinking water; in which case, they lose any reason to complain about not having drinking water.
Sounds like an argument for 'might is right' too me. It's what both sides believe in. Both have the truth on their side too. If surrender to violence is the answer then why don't Israel do that?
Should Ukraine surrender?
Look, what's going on in the 'Holy land' is violence leading to more violence. I don't expect better of Hamas, I do expect better of Israel. They've learnt nothing yet, my god, they alone know what violence can lead to.
I didn't say surrender to violence. I said surrender if you've lost. That answers you Is+Uk questions.
Who is the aggressor here? Why give comfort for tyrants? And I mean this broadly - should Ukraine surrender?
This is just poor logic akin to 'lie back and take it'
This has never been a fair fight, The West backed Israel and has esssentially forgiven/accepted whatever they do, however awful.
They tried for peace in 1994, and Israel didn't follow through - they murdered their own Prime Minister and voted in the opposition.
There are other ways, Sanctions would force change in Israel.
"If the Palestinians simply surrender, lay down their weapons, they would very quickly have a much better quality of life, and their children would have happier lives if they stopped teaching them hate. "
They did this in the West Bank... Didn't lead to the outcome you detail.
They still suffer, and still lose territory to Israel.
> never been a fair fight
Irrelevant.
"Irrelevant"
Of course it's relevant, The West's actions have led directly to this disastrous situation.
No other thoughts? No comment on how your suggested course of action was already tried and failed?
It is irrelevant. Whinging about "fairness" doesn't help, it just obscures. The point is, they lost.
Already tried and failed: I don't believe that. Which is to say, I don't believe your history. But no, I don't want to trawl through the long and painful history of error and stupidity and malice.
"The point is, they lost."
So that means they just be killed?
"Already tried and failed: I don't believe that. "
So then explore the history and save us this weird opinion.
"But no, I don't want to trawl through the long and painful history of error and stupidity and malice."
This so disappointing, that you care enough to express an opinion, but not enough to explore the detail.
Seriously, How can they do what you suggest?
How do they surrender? What happens after?
Do they just become citizens of Israel?
> they just be killed?
They need to surrender, i.e. stop fighting. In Gaza, they haven't.
> How do they surrender?
Don't attack Israel a-la 7th Oct. Going on from that to now, stop firing at Israeli troops (and of course stop firing rockets at Israel from Gaza), and pile all the weapons in nice eaily identified dumps where they can be safed. There wouldn't be fighting around the hospitals, if the Palestinians weren't firing.
If it helps, I also think that the Israelis can and should do much better, starting now. Which would include announcing an immeadiate permanent freeze on West Bank settlements, probably some kind of at least token pull-back there, reining in the settlers, and generally being nice to Palestinians in general where possible.
"If it helps, I also think that the Israelis can and should do much better, starting now. Which would include announcing an immeadiate permanent freeze on West Bank settlements, probably some kind of at least token pull-back there, reining in the settlers, and generally being nice to Palestinians in general where possible"
You're not really taking this seriously are you?
If you want to try and understand this conflict, this is a good article.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-27/gaza-netanyahu-vision-for-future-of-israel-peace-process/103147352
> who is the man driving all this
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding. BN has not been a fortunate choice, but he's not alone. Hopefully he'll be gone soon, and the Israelis will be offered and will make a better choice.
Driving all this, as in the current invasion of Gaza.
I think 'unfortunate' is a poor choice of words.
He has worked to prevent a two-state solution.
Even with Hamas changing tune to support a return to the 1967 borders - which I think most people outside of Zionists would be happy with - he won't let it happen.
I am no supporter of Hamas. They are evil and rule as autocrats and have caused the death of many thousands.
But this conflict will never end if BN and Hamas are left in power.
In it's current state Israel will never seek peace that will require it to give up land.
But there will never be peace without that.
It's either that, forever war, or genocide.
There needs to be economic sanctions to force Israel to find peace. They're the ones with the power to do it.
I agree re BN. But "the 1967 borders - which I think most people outside of Zionists" is dubious. Who are these "most people"? If it isn't "most Israelis" then your "most" isn't much use.
"Israel will never seek peace that will require it to give up land": I think this is largely true; I've removed your "in it's current state" because I think that's an unnecessary qualifier.
But now we come to an odd omission on your part: you only consider movement on Irsael's side. You should consider movement on the Palestinians' side too: surrender, accept current borders. They are, after all, the ones currently suffering the most. If they choose to hold out for the unobtainable, if they choose forever war, then they lose my sympathy when they complain that Fire would certainly burn.
FWIW, I think all the blood-n-soil stuff is the wrong direction. People should try to care less about nationality, nationalism, their glorious history of being oppressed, and so on.
Here's another one, since it comes up in this form often: "We need to work together to rebuild Gaza like we did Japan and Germany after WWII. We need to educate them, give them tools to flourish and help push a more moderate form of government in the region". But the difference is that after WWII, German and Japan had surrendered, as in stopped fighting. And they didn't really need a lot in the way of education, since they knew rather well that they had gone off the rails.
"But now we come to an odd omission on your part: you only consider movement on Irsael's side. You should consider movement on the Palestinians' side too: surrender, accept current borders."
It's not odd, it's a compromise.
1967 borders are less territory for Palestinians than the 1948 borders.
Why give succour to the aggressor? Why allow Israel to take and take, with impunity?
By agreeing to your peace you give tacit approval to every tin pot dictator and autocrat.
Might is not right
"But the difference is that after WWII, German and Japan had surrendered, as in stopped fighting."
Palestinians weren't fighting before Oct 7. Yet they still suffered.
The West Bank is not fighting, yet they still suffer.
This is not a battle of good vs evil, this is colonialism.
Surrender is not an option, they tried it before and BN sabotaged it.
BN bragged about stopping the two state solution
Why is Israel so special that we, as the West, allow them a war of conquest. Wars of conquest hat have been going on for 70 years. It needs to stop
Not sure the West is 'allowing' Israel to do anything. Sovereign nation and all that. Very much doubt if Netanyahu called Joe Biden to ask permission.
Going into Gaza and hunting down the terrorists that killed 1,400 Israelis does not actually have the odor of a war for conquest.
> 1967 borders... Why give succour to the aggressor?
That seems simplistic; Origins of the Six-Day War provides a more nuanced view. Its also... too long ago; IMO. People need to learn to give up their stale grievances.
See-also Richard Hanania's Israel Must Crush Palestinian Hopes, which is closely linked to my "surrender" idea.
Tom they had a war of conquest in 1948, 1967, and then following the breakdown of the Oslo accords they progressively took more and more land.
Of course they spoke with Biden. He moved Carrier group forces into the Mediterranean and Red Sea to protect Israel.
William, because the outcome of 1967 is still being played out, they stole land, won't give it back and then wonder why they can't have peace.
The Palestinian people have tried negotiating peace deals and been stymied. Netanyahu brags about it.
At no point either during or after their formation did Israel show any compassion or care for other people who lived as neighbours. They didn't try and make this peaceful at anytime and have leveraged violence to gain land. And The West supported and aided this. The British set this up with the Balfour Declaration.
These events are still playing out, so it's unreasonable to declare this ancient history. Israel are using the same tactics again. They'll eat more of the West Bank, and then claim to be victims.
It's interesting your claims around "surrender".
One key aspect of Native Title here in Australia is that they're never surrendered.
I know when we discussed this before you said Native Title was symbolic, but it's not so.
You also claimed it was mostly useless land.
But the truth is this land is some of the most valuable in Australia. The Banjima people in the Pilbara, for example, have title over some of the richest iron-ore mines in the world.
Surrender is not the answer. Justice is the answer.
"The bitter truth about Arab hatred of Jews and how to model anti-Israeli sentiment"
Yeah that's a great opening line...
Belatedly, I realise I've published my solution before; see The Struggle.
Post a Comment