[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am skeptical about this claim. An ouster of Netanyahu seems to go hand-in-hand with an end to the war, at least.
If innonimatu was referring to the the entire system of apartheid and occupation and illegal expansion (which is the context for this conflict, which did not begin on 7 October), then yes that entire system is inherent to Israel, and is supported and has been supported both materially and otherwise by the West™. So simply changing the man at the helm will not change the storm.

If innonimatu is referring to the current war on Gaza, then he is again right, because though Netanyahu benefits from the prolongation of the war, he is not alone in wanting to prolong it. If anything Netanyahu is acting pragmatically – for his own self-interest, rather than Israel's – but still pragmatically. Compare this to most of Israeli politicians, who are ideologically driven on a crusade to cleanse the Saracen, and some of whom have criticised Netanyahu for not doing enough. And consider also that a significant portion of the Israeli population also supports this war – 2/3rd, I believe it was – it is pretty damn certain that unless Israel undergoes a Bolshevik-style leftist upheaval no humane solution can come from within Israel, any change that can be effected must be done from without, whether it is sanctions or military intervention.
 
I am skeptical about this claim. An ouster of Netanyahu seems to go hand-in-hand with an end to the war, at least.

This is only true in that ending the war could lead to Netanyahu getting booted. Most Israelis support Netanyahu's policies in Gaza. This is the broad problem with the Schumer Protocol: Netanyahu himself is widely disliked but most of those who dislike him support the war and are committed to "winning".
 
Just one small corner of Hell, courtesy of the IDF: They're killing journalists at what appears to be an unprecedented rate.


According to The Washington Post, the war in Gaza has been deadlier for journalists than any conflict this century.

Journalists killed, as of February 6, 2024:
- Iraq: 229
- Syria: 155
- Gaza: 85
- Afghanistan: 76
- Ukraine: 17

Journalists killed, per day average, as of February 6, 2024:
- Gaza: 0.72
- Iraq 0.07
- Syria: 0.03
- Ukraine: 0.02
- Afghanistan: 0.01

According to a 2006 New York Times article about how deadly the war in Iraq was for journalists, the numbers of journalists killed in previous wars:
- World War II: 69
- The Vietnam War: 63
- The Korean War: 17
 
The whole project of Israel is fundamentally premised on the dislocation, displacement, and destruction of the indigenous Palestinian population, and no superstructural regime change can alter that fundamental material base. So long as Israel exists the genocide will continue.
 
Last edited:
This seems unlikely, long term. Although I will note again that short term... official US government aid to Israel has been stalled for months... by... heroic... Congressional, partisan gridlock.

In other words the conditions everyone has been blaming on the US and calling for the US to stop, ie the funding of Israel... has been a moot point for months. The US funding of Israel has been blocked for months, so scapegoating the US for this war is, at a minimum... a little more complex in this particular case.

Also want to point out that while the particular $14 billion aid package is stalled, the US is still shipping arms to Israel and has not stopped doing so, e.g.

These more routine shipments don't really make the topline news.
 

Washington Post said:
The new report from a cluster of international organizations and charities known as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative, or IPC, outlined a dire situation with up to half the population of Gaza — 1.1 million people — facing catastrophic levels of hunger and starvation between now and July.


UNHCR said:
The United Nations uses a five-phase scale known as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) to assess a country’s food security situation. A famine classification is the highest on the IPC scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis.
UNHCR said:
wfpfaminechart.png
Washington Post said:
In the IPC’s five-tier classification of food crises, Gaza now has the largest percentage of a population to receive its most severe rating since the body began reporting in 2004, Beth Bechdol, deputy director general at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), told The Washington Post.
Washington Post said:
By comparison, today in Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan — where millions are experiencing crisis and emergency levels of food insecurity — none of the population currently falls into the worst tier of catastrophic food shortages, Bechdol said.
Washington Post said:
On Monday, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, repeated his assertion that Israel was using starvation as a “weapon of war.”

“In Gaza we are no longer on the brink of famine; we are in a state of famine, affecting thousands of people,” Borrell said at the start of a conference on humanitarian aid for Gaza in Brussels. “This is unacceptable. Starvation is used as a weapon of war.”
 
This is only true in that ending the war could lead to Netanyahu getting booted. Most Israelis support Netanyahu's policies in Gaza. This is the broad problem with the Schumer Protocol: Netanyahu himself is widely disliked but most of those who dislike him support the war and are committed to "winning".
This goes way back to when I raised this issue with you earlier. Netanyahu has no incentive to end the war as it would likely lead to the end his political career. As I stated previously that he would, he is using the war to prolong his regime.

I do think I see the distinction you are drawing... that seems to be that if the Israeli people were to somehow decide to just vote him out, which as I've said, seems unlikely as long as the war continues... that voting him out would not end the war, because whoever replaced him would be just as committed to continuing the war as Netanyahu is, ostensibly because the Israeli people want to "win", whatever that means.

If I've correctly stated your position... I am unsure about that, because I don't think the hypothetical new PM of Israel would have the same desperation of incentive that Netanyahu does. There's also a sort-of catch-22 here, because I think you and I probably agree, that if the majority of Israeli voters support the war, they are going to tend to at least tolerate, if not outright support Netanyahu staying in office... precisely because they know that he is going to continue the war that they support. For Netanyahu to get hypothetically voted out, it almost requires, as a prerequisite, that Israeli opinion turns against the war. Does that make sense?
 
If I've correctly stated your position... I am unsure about that, because I don't think the hypothetical new PM of Israel would have the same desperation of incentive that Netanyahu does. There's also a sort-of catch-22 here, because I think you and I probably agree, that if the majority of Israeli voters support the war, they are going to tend to at least tolerate, if not outright support Netanyahu staying in office... precisely because they know that he is going to continue the war that they support. For Netanyahu to get hypothetically voted out, it almost requires, as a prerequisite, that Israeli opinion turns against the war. Does that make sense?
You're putting too much value on Netanyahu and not enough on everyone who's more extreme than him in his own cabinet.

This is not a defense of Netanyahu. And I still think getting him out would be some kind of gain. But if people are telling you "there are other people just as willing to continue the pogrom", you should listen to them. Or look into Likud yourself, if that works better.
 
This goes way back to when I raised this issue with you earlier. Netanyahu has no incentive to end the war as it would likely lead to the end his political career. As I stated previously that he would, he is using the war to prolong his regime.

I do think I see the distinction you are drawing... that seems to be that if the Israeli people were to somehow decide to just vote him out, which as I've said, seems unlikely as long as the war continues... that voting him out would not end the war, because whoever replaced him would be just as committed to continuing the war as Netanyahu is, ostensibly because the Israeli people want to "win", whatever that means.

If I've correctly stated your position... I am unsure about that, because I don't think the hypothetical new PM of Israel would have the same desperation of incentive that Netanyahu does. There's also a sort-of catch-22 here, because I think you and I probably agree, that if the majority of Israeli voters support the war, they are going to tend to at least tolerate, if not outright support Netanyahu staying in office... precisely because they know that he is going to continue the war that they support. For Netanyahu to get hypothetically voted out, it almost requires, as a prerequisite, that Israeli opinion turns against the war. Does that make sense?

I think it is a mistake to view the war and its conduct (also, as an aside, let me be clear that using the word "war" in this context is dubious as I believe there is enough evidence out there already, and has been for some time, to conclude that this is a "war" being waged on Gaza's ability to sustain human life with any damage to Hamas being incidental to that goal) as primarily arising out of Netanyahu's short-term incentives. This is a war that is broadly supported by Israeli society, and those who are anti-war as we would understand that term are a tiny minority, single-digit percentage of Israeli voters. For example, the following article discusses polling from November showing that 1.8% of Israelis believed the IDF was using too much firepower in Gaza (as compared to over 57% who believed the IDF was using too little firepower).


There is no indication that these numbers have changed substantially in the time since that survey was taken.

For additional context this is an article less neutral than the previous one but gives additional context including many polls from prior to October 7th:


Liberal Zionists in the US and elsewhere certainly would like to pretend that Israel doesn't support the destruction of Gaza, but reality intervenes. In fact, I have read multiple times in articles arguing that US officials should not call for a ceasefire some variation on "Israelis are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause" and there seems no reason to doubt that fact.
 

Liberal Zionists in the US and elsewhere certainly would like to pretend that Israel doesn't support the destruction of Gaza, but reality intervenes. In fact, I have read multiple times in articles arguing that US officials should not call for a ceasefire some variation on "Israelis are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause" and there seems no reason to doubt that fact.
The destruction of Gaza seems to be both past tense and ongoing (ie., getting worse), so at this point, the occupation and reconstruction of Gaza appears to be where things are headed, ultimately. One question is to what extent the populace will be relocated, with West Bank seemingly being the most likely destination. Another question is whether a rebuilt Gaza will even remain a majority Palestinian territory, or if it will be resettled by Israel. One of the (many) problems with the Two-State-Solution concept was that the only way for Palestine to have a continuous territory that included both West Bank and Gaza was 1) Israel to be bisected into two regions; or 2) Israel to lose its southern border with Egypt... neither of which was going to be accepted by Israel.

It may be that the complete destruction and large-scale partial evacuation of Gaza, followed by occupation and resettlement is being sold/bought by Israelis as the only way to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian territory led by Hamas. As I've said previously, I think this is misguided, as the many of Palestinians devastated by this war are going to be looking to get some retribution, not to mention looking to resist any occupation, as well as resisting any resettlement efforts, both of Israelis attempting to move in, as well as attempts to force Palestinians out, presumably to West Bank. The point is, that even if Hamas is crippled or otherwise effectively nullified, some other group will emerge to take their place. The question is how long that will take... whether it will happen almost immediately, or if it will be more gradual over the course of several years.
 
I never understood a two-state solution with a country separated by miles of an opposing country. That sounds like India v. Pakistan/Bangladesh all over again, and it was terrible for the latter.

Gazans cannot afford to be let go into their own enclave again, but with that, Israel should accept them as equal citizens and let them flourish throughout the country. We'll see if either side feels like doing that, but I'm not optimistic...
 

December 2016, then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry: "Today there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both. And it won't ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own, with a one-state solution."

Israel, 7 years later: "We found a 3rd option: 'Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'"

Spoiler :
(NSFW)

"How can you shoot women and children?"
"Easy, just don't lead 'em so much."

 
December 2016, then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry: "Today there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both. And it won't ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own, with a one-state solution."

I saw a variation of this argument made in an article today (now of course I can't find the article) but I too thought: well, Israel is taking a third option to, if you will, solve the Palestinian problem...
 
In my high school history classes in the early 2000s the formula was basically "democratic Israel, Jewish Israel, or Greater Israel: pick 2". As a polity and as a succession of governments since at least Sharon, they've clearly chosen, which was pretty predictable from basically when Sharon turfed Barak from the PMship. They haven't looked back from the expansion, expulsion and population destruction path since then.
 

Government's endorsement of amended Palestinian statehood motion wins praise, draws outrage​

'We were able to find common ground,' Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly says

The Liberal government's last-minute endorsement of an amended NDP motion on Palestinian statehood is being welcomed by the country's Muslim advocacy group and derided by Jewish voices who say Ottawa has sub-contracted its foreign policy to "anti-Israel radicals."

The motion, introduced by NDP MP Heather McPherson, was controversial from the start. One clause in the original motion called on the government to "officially recognize the State of Palestine."

As the war rages on in Gaza, some of Canada's allies, including the United Kingdom, have signalled they're open to recognizing the Palestinian territories as a state — once some key conditions are met.

The idea has been pitched as a way to revive dormant peace talks and prompt the creation of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel.

The Trudeau government took out its red pen and amended the language in McPherson's motion to add the stipulation that Canada will "work with international partners" to "pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East," and work "towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution."

Before backing the motion, the government also adjusted its section on military exports. It wouldn't go along with a call to "suspend all trade in military goods and technology with Israel" but agreed to "cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel."

As for UNRWA, the UN's Palestinian relief agency, the government agreed to maintain its funding — as it has announced previously — but it added language to the motion saying it supports an internal investigation into claims that some UNRWA staff took part in the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.

The government also added verbiage about backing "long-term governance reforms" and "accountability measures" at UNRWA. The aid agency has been described by some as an essential lifeline for Gazans living through a destructive war — while some Israelis claim it has been infiltrated by Hamas-linked elements.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said the government secured important "concessions" before agreeing to the motion's passage.

"We were able to find common ground on the question of the two-state solution, which is important for Canadians and for our country," she said.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Palestinians are "suffering on a massive scale in Gaza," and the entire population of the territory is "on the brink of starvation."

"Our motion offers real solutions for peace and justice, as well as steps to show that Canada can be a force for good in this world and that Canada and its leaders have the moral courage to say when enough is enough," he said.

Israel launched an offensive in the Gaza Strip following the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7. The surprise Hamas assault left some 1,200 people — mostly civilians but also soldiers, police officers and security officials — dead in Israel, according to officials, and saw hundreds of hostages taken to Gaza.

Gaza health officials said that, as of last week, Israel's military campaign had killed more than 31,000 people and displaced nearly two million more.

McPherson said she was amenable to the government's changes because the motion was never meant to be "a 'gotcha' motion" — the party wanted the government to come on side.

"This is a moment in time where we need to come up with a better solution for peace in the Middle East," she told CBC News.

The government's changes meant that a motion that was destined to fail — fewer than a dozen Liberal MPs told CBC News earlier Monday they would vote in favour — easily carried the House of Commons, with only the staunchly pro-Israel Conservative caucus, three Liberals and an Independent MP voting nay.

The final vote count was 204 in favour and 117 voting against.

Motion 'rewards Hamas,' says Liberal MP​

MP Anthony Housefather, one of the Liberals who voted no, said Canada's Jewish community is feeling "demoralized and intimidated" as it grapples with a spike in antisemitism.

In a speech to the Commons, Housefather said the motion "rewards Hamas," because it creates "a false equivalency between the State of Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas."

"Canada should be standing with Israel. Canada should be defending the right of Israel to fight back against a terrorist organization. We should not be passing motions that make a terrorist organization equivalent to a democratic state," he said.

The amended motion passed by the Commons does describe Hamas as "a listed terrorist organization."

The government agreed to language demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza — but added the stipulation that Hamas "must lay down its arms."

Asked if he could stay on as a parliamentary secretary after the government's endorsement, Housefather told CBC News he would "take the time to reflect."

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday before question period, Housefather, who appeared emotional, said he's re-evaluating his place in the Liberal caucus after last night's vote. He said he'd "take the time to reflect" on whether he can stay on as a parliamentary secretary.

"I truly felt last night that a line had been crossed," Housefather said.

"When my party members cheered and gave a standing ovation to Heather McPherson and the NDP, I started reflecting on whether or not I belonged. I didn't feel like some MPs — or a lot of MPs — understood the existential threat that Israel faces.

"I am such a proud Canadian but I also care passionately about the state of Israel because it's the only refuge for Jewish people when they're exiled or thrown out of countries. You need an Israel."

He said the government didn't have to vote for an NDP opposition day motion — it made a choice to adopt something that's been widely panned by many Jewish Canadians, he said. "It easily could have been voted down," he said. "That should have been the course."

While he's uneasy about his place in the party he's called home for most of his life, Housefather said his colleagues have shown him "a lot of love."

CIJA, a Jewish advocacy group, said stripping the unilateral recognition of Palestine from the motion was the result of "substantial mobilization of the pro-Israel community," but it still criticized the motion as passed.

"We are deeply disappointed that the Liberal government has chosen to effectively sub-contract Canadian foreign policy to anti-Israel radicals within the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois," the group said in a statement following the vote.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a vocal critic of Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and an advocate of Canada taking a harder line against the Jewish state and its leadership, said it was pleased by what it described as "a historic vote."

"Canada voted in favour of Palestine today," the group said. "That is history."

The NCCM said it was happy with what it described as the motion's call for "a weapons embargo" and a passage that would impose "sanctions on settlers" — a reference to one passage of the motion that calls on the government to impose sanctions on "extremist" Israeli settlers in the West Bank who have attacked Palestinians.

Salma Zahid, a Liberal MP who backed the motion from the start, said "a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions" is unfolding in Gaza and Canada must do something.

She said that given the massive civilian death toll in Gaza, Canada needs to "do more than just wag its finger" at the Israeli government over its actions.

Zahid was particularly critical of the Israeli government's tacit acceptance of settlements in the West Bank.

Those settlements, which are seen as illegal under international law, have been described as an impediment to the creation of a future Palestinian state.

"It is time for Canada to stand up and be counted. Canadians are looking to us. They expect us to lead. They expect us to act. Either we stand for peace and justice, or we do not," she said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-palestinian-statehood-motion-1.7148387
 

The accusation by the UN and other humanitarians that Israel may be committing a war crime by deliberately starving Gaza’s population is likely to significantly increase the prospect of legal culpability for the country, including at the international court of justice.

Amid reports that the Israel Defense Forces are hiring dozens of lawyers to defend against anticipated cases and legal challenges, the charge that Israel has triggered a “man-made famine” by deliberately obstructing the entry of aid into Gaza is backed by an increasing body of evidence.

Already facing a complaint of genocide from South Africa at the ICJ, the UN’s top court – including an allegation that senior Israeli political officials have incited genocide in public statements – Israel is also the subject of a provisional emergency ruling by the court ordering it to admit life-saving aid to Gaza.
 
This seems to be a shift in US policy, reporters here think it is signifcant...


“For the first time, the US is proposing the word ceasefire. … That is significant because Israel did not want the word ceasefire in any resolution, and now it is the US which is proposing it,” Bays said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom