Hamas attack on Israel

[Bewildered]

I am still finding the rest is politics really interesting and helpful on this.

I appreciate Warsi’s perspective: https://youtu.be/ipigziMMg1k?si=UiuoIDGg7T2mKBLc and her honesty in criticising Tories.

Tangent: I always found her quite good on Islamophobia, and it sounds like she regrets her social conservatism on gay marriage. It’s funny comparing her to Rory because somehow I find her more likeable because I also know I disagree with her on very serious issues that if I’m right and she’s wrong have destroyed lives. However I think she honestly believes otherwise. Whereas with Rory i just plain don’t understand why he is a Tory. He sounds incredibly earnest and thoughtful when he tries to explain it (as he does when he explains anything in the podcast) but it really just amounts to mumbling about having deep value in anachronistic ideas about nation and country that seem to me to be in fundamental conflict with his actual world views. On issues I can’t find anything that actually makes him a Tory and it seems I like everything else about him, but his inability to explain why he’s a Tory bothers me so much it almost spoils my entire impression. I can’t help but feel that he is simply not being honest about it because it just makes no sense, and he explains other things so clearly that it really stands out.

That was a good Podcast.

Rory is fiscally conservative as well as loving the monarchy and all the associated baggage. Basically a One Nation Tory who is socially liberal. I think Rory (and Warsi) are wrong on quite a few things, but aren't evil or careerist chancers.

Are you really sure he is fiscally conservative and if so in what sense? I thought he was before, I guess based on what he did as an mp and because he’s so obviously socially liberal. But since listening to way too many videos by him, I don’t get the impression he is. He seems quite scathing of the underfunding of many public services and what austerity did. I guess he could accept austerity was just bad economics (and indeed I did somehow get the impression he may be following the same economists i am) but he does also seem in favour of more services, just skeptical of how they were being delivered. Also he now seems now to be advocating for more local government and devolution.

[EACLucifer]

Yesterday Reuters reported a Hamas accusation that Israel had bombed an evacuation route.

By the time they reported it, accusations that Hamas themselves had shot fleeing civilians so as to pin civilians in northern Gaza as human shields was circulating.

Photographic evidence shows no signs of bombs, nor of heavy calibre fire. The incident occurred 2km from Israeli forces (I'm trusting other people's geolocations here). To me, it seems the second version of events is more plausible, especially given Hamas's prior use of trucks to block evacuation routes, locals reporting being prevented from evacuating, and what appeared to be an IED - it was either an IED or an accidental gas cylinder explosion but not a military explosive - on an evacuation route earlier in the conflict that they also blamed on an airstrike. Even without performing that assessment, though, reporting the one accusation without the context of there being the other is deeply reckless, especially given the rising tide of antisemitism currently occurring.

[EACLucifer]

especially given the rising tide of antisemitism currently occurring.

Another Jew murdered in france, this time a woman stabbed in her flat and a swastika carved on the door.

[Trinucleus]

especially given the rising tide of antisemitism currently occurring.

Another Jew murdered in france, this time a woman stabbed in her flat and a swastika carved on the door.

The innocent Palestinians killed during Israel's attacks on Hamas won't have helped, sadly

[EACLucifer]

especially given the rising tide of antisemitism currently occurring.

Another Jew murdered in france, this time a woman stabbed in her flat and a swastika carved on the door.

The innocent Palestinians killed during Israel's attacks on Hamas won't have helped, sadly

Blaming Israel for antisemitism in France is a textbook example of antisemitism, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and reconsider your f.cking opinions.

[bob sterman]

especially given the rising tide of antisemitism currently occurring.

Another Jew murdered in france, this time a woman stabbed in her flat and a swastika carved on the door.

The innocent Palestinians killed during Israel's attacks on Hamas won't have helped, sadly

So someone was attacked due to their religion/ethnicity - their house marked with a symbol of genocide - and you want to blame it on the actions of a government in another part of the world?

When members of other religious/ethnic groups are attacked - do you routinely apportion blame to governments of countries in other parts of the world whose populations mostly come from that group?

(If it's the Lyon attack that's been in the news recently - then thankfully the woman survived).

[EACLucifer]

(If it's the Lyon attack that's been in the news recently - then thankfully the woman survived).

Yes, it's my fault for misreporting it, I read "found stabbed" as "found dead", that's on me.

[Trinucleus]

Another Jew murdered in france, this time a woman stabbed in her flat and a swastika carved on the door.

The innocent Palestinians killed during Israel's attacks on Hamas won't have helped, sadly

Blaming Israel for antisemitism in France is a textbook example of antisemitism, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and reconsider your f.cking opinions.

Antisemitic attacks have increased. There's no excuse for them. What other factor is behind the increase if not the situation in Gaza?

[lpm]

Antisemitic attacks have increased. There's no excuse for them. What other factor is behind the increase if not the situation in Gaza?

That a terror organisation has called for lone wolves around the world to commit terror attacks.

[bob sterman]

Antisemitic attacks have increased. There's no excuse for them. What other factor is behind the increase if not the situation in Gaza?

The promotion of the antisemitic view that Jews worldwide are uniquely responsible for the actions of a foreign government - unlike members of other religious/ethnic groups.

Think back - have you ever written a sentence like this...

"What other factor is behind the increase [in attacks on religious/ethnic group X] if not the actions of country Y?"

...in a context where you were referring to group other than Jews?

[philbo]

Antisemitic attacks have increased. There's no excuse for them. What other factor is behind the increase if not the situation in Gaza?

The promotion of the antisemitic view that Jews worldwide are uniquely responsible for the actions of a foreign government - unlike members of other religious/ethnic groups.

Think back - have you ever written a sentence like this...

"What other factor is behind the increase [in attacks on religious/ethnic group X] if not the actions of country Y?"

...in a context where you were referring to group other than Jews?

I've not said that, but have heard the sentiment articulated many times over with respect to islamophobia and the actions of Pakistan, Iran, the Taliban, and others; I would be very surprised if the same hadn't been said about the actions of America and attacks against christians in places they're a minority out-group. Or without religion, the actions of the USSR and communists in the West.

I don't think it requires antisemitism to recognise that the actions of a Jewish state will give increased motivation to those already predisposed against Jews. But I don't think it is uniquely an antisemitic response.

[Bewildered]

To be honest I think lots of people have said that the 9/11 attach led to attacks on muslims. Also the attack by Hamas has led to murder of a young Muslim, as well as the response from Israel which is killing gaza civilians. And I have heard lots of people blame Hamas for a rise in islamaphobia.

I don’t think it’s wrong and I don’t think saying so implies that the perpetrators are any less guilty, anymore than pointing out that inflammatory language or descriptions can lead to rises in these incidents.

Reading back I guess the real reason for people swarming on Trinucleus is the post came across as trying to immediately segue a tragedy from anti-semitic violence into criticism of Israel and maybe that gave the impression they were blaming israel for the attacks. Anyway I can see how it could upset people and seem off, if not anti-semitic.

However people complaining about attacks on Jewish people while never mentioning ones on Muslims and the swarming on someone who brings up Palestinian suffering, also looks a lot like Islamophobia.

[Bewildered]

Antisemitic attacks have increased. There's no excuse for them. What other factor is behind the increase if not the situation in Gaza?

The promotion of the antisemitic view that Jews worldwide are uniquely responsible for the actions of a foreign government - unlike members of other religious/ethnic groups.

Think back - have you ever written a sentence like this...

"What other factor is behind the increase [in attacks on religious/ethnic group X] if not the actions of country Y?"

...in a context where you were referring to group other than Jews?

I've not said that, but have heard the sentiment articulated many times over with respect to islamophobia and the actions of Pakistan, Iran, the Taliban, and others; I would be very surprised if the same hadn't been said about the actions of America and attacks against christians in places they're a minority out-group. Or without religion, the actions of the USSR and communists in the West.

I don't think it requires antisemitism to recognise that the actions of a Jewish state will give increased motivation to those already predisposed against Jews. But I don't think it is uniquely an antisemitic response.

Oops. I did write my post before seeing yours. I just take too long thinking about what to say….

[EACLucifer]

Also the attack by Hamas has led to murder of a young Muslim

The child who was murdered was Muslim, Arab and Palestinian-American. I would be quite angry with anyone who said he was killed because of Hamas's vile actions. He died because an American man bought into the racism promoted by right-wing talk radio. He died because of what his murderer believed, not because of the actions of vile people who shared his nominal race, ethnicity and religion.

As for the claim that the spike in antisemitism is due to Israel's actions, there's two problems with that. Firstly the exact same far left antisemites who have gone mask off in the last month have never shown much sign of caring when it's Lebanon discriminating against Palestinians, nor Assad's Syria massacring them, with many even supporting Assad as he's anti-western.

Secondly over antisemitism, calls for Israel's destruction, pro-Hamas imagery and pro-October-7th imagery appeared at demos while Israel was still fighting on Israeli soil and before the campaign against Hamas in Gaza started.

[Trinucleus]

“When conflict erupts in Israel, antisemitic incidents soon follow in the U.S. and globally,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “From white supremacists in California displaying antisemitic banners on highway overpasses to radical anti-Zionists harassing Jewish people because of their real or perceived support for the Jewish state, we are witnessing a disturbing rise in antisemitic activity here while the war rages overseas.”

Which is the point I was wanting to make

[Bewildered]

Also the attack by Hamas has led to murder of a young Muslim

The child who was murdered was Muslim, Arab and Palestinian-American. I would be quite angry with anyone who said he was killed because of Hamas's vile actions. He died because an American man bought into the racism promoted by right-wing talk radio. He died because of what his murderer believed, not because of the actions of vile people who shared his nominal race, ethnicity and religion.

As for the claim that the spike in antisemitism is due to Israel's actions, there's two problems with that. Firstly the exact same far left antisemites who have gone mask off in the last month have never shown much sign of caring when it's Lebanon discriminating against Palestinians, nor Assad's Syria massacring them, with many even supporting Assad as he's anti-western.

Secondly over antisemitism, calls for Israel's destruction, pro-Hamas imagery and pro-October-7th imagery appeared at demos while Israel was still fighting on Israeli soil and before the campaign against Hamas in Gaza started.

First I think you are confusing cause and effect with responsibility and blame.

Secondly if we try and only discuss blame, I’m honestly not sure here. Obviously the perpetrators are to blame. I think also blaming the people who whipped up the hatred through speech is reasonable (and it seems like you agree with this since you mention talk radio). However I recall some people arguing this excuses the perpetrators and that is where the blame should be placed rather than with people exercising their free speech. Apart from some vulnerable people being easy to influence, my counter argument is that someone can be held 100% responsible while also acknowledging a secondary cause. If I gave someone a gun and they shoot someone with it, they are just as guilt of the murder as if they had made the gun themselves or stolen it from me. However if I did give it to them knowing what they would do or just recklessly ignoring a significant risk that they might then I am also to blame, at least in part (how big depending on details). Similarly I think you can blame reckless speech that stokes fear / hate / resentment in part while still holding the perpetrator just as accountable as if it had not been a factor. However I am not sure why exactly the same can’t apply Hamas. Of course their main crime is murdering Israeli civilians, but don’t they also have responsibility for the knock on effects they create? Why aren’t they also to blame if the people using it to stir things up are, when in both cases this kind of incident is a predictable secondary consequence?

[bob sterman]

I missed the second half off when I posted this

The Houthis, for those not familiar with them, are directly backed by and more or less controlled by Iran's IRGC. The technology for these missiles and certain critical parts at minimum came from Iran, and it is possible these weren't locally assembled but just shipped straight from Iran, though local assembly is also possible. The missile show down by Arrow 2 was a Medium Range Ballistic Missile, a serious bit of kit that, if it got through, could do a hell of a lot of damage. This shows Iran's involvement, as do the multiple attacks from Syrian territory, and the attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq over the last few weeks.

I suspect the US line on Iranian involvement will harden once the USS Eisenhower has transitted the Suez canal.

Just over a week ago, when it was already en route the US, announced the carrier was heading to the Arabian Sea - not Eastern Mediterranean.

She passed the Strait of Gibraltar three days ago. It's notable how quickly they got USS Gerald Ford into position too - satellite photos showed her leaving a truly remarkable wake, though of course it's easier to do that sort of thing if you don't have to worry about fuel consumption.

Eisenhower was passing through Suez yesterday if this photo is real...

https://twitter.com/SprinterX99880/stat ... 6234947686

[bob sterman]

Eisenhower was passing through Suez yesterday if this photo is real...

https://twitter.com/SprinterX99880/stat ... 6234947686

Also transitting the canal yesterday - 154 cruise missiles...

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/05/poli ... index.html

It may be that the fairly subdued US response so far, to various direct attacks on US troops, has been down to waiting to have various assets in the region.

[Millennie Al]

If I gave someone a gun and they shoot someone with it, they are just as guilt of the murder as if they had made the gun themselves or stolen it from me. However if I did give it to them knowing what they would do or just recklessly ignoring a significant risk that they might then I am also to blame, at least in part (how big depending on details). Similarly I think you can blame reckless speech that stokes fear / hate / resentment in part while still holding the perpetrator just as accountable as if it had not been a factor.

However, there's a critically important difference. If you give someone an idea, I can give them a competing idea. If you give them a gun, there is no anti-gun that I can give them that will take it away. Furthermore, in discussions of "hate speech", it is very rare that people are merely passively exposed - normally people seek it out deliberately, which very much makes it their own responsibility to properly evaluate what they hear.

And quite apart from the principle of Let a hundred flowers bloom, if you like that approach.

[philbo]

Oops. I did write my post before seeing yours. I just take too long thinking about what to say….

Taking ones time to articulate what one wants to say with this sort of subject matter is no bad thing I'm glad we largely agree

My social media feed is full of people who've said things that echo the worst of the antisemites are saying, yet don't mean it in the same way - ISTM that Netanyahu has responded exactly how Hamas wanted him to: with excess force, harming and killing civilians, just so that they can move the needle on international support for Israel.

A friend tweeted recently "In spite of opposing world views, it's clear both Hamas and Netanyahu have one thing in common, complete disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians"
The lack of humanity is tragic

[Gfamily]

My social media feed is full of people who've said things that echo the worst of the antisemites are saying, yet don't mean it in the same way

Indeed, having an expectation of how antisemites will respond is not the same as being antisemitic.

Similarly, expecting trouble from the far right at this weekend's demonstrations is not 'blaming the demonstrators'.

[IvanV]

The Economist wrote a leader headed "Why Israel must fight on" which I find rather unpersuasive. They do suggest that Israel should be rather more careful over Palestinian civilians than currently seems to be the case, but that seems to be something you have to say for acceptability, while knowing it is unlikely to happen. Their premise is that "while Hamas runs Gaza, peace is impossible", concluding that any productive way forward starts with Israel's military eradication of Hamas.

Then they write, "The Palestinians need moderate leaders with a democratic mandate." Which is unlikely to happen. And of course a bunch of requirements on Israel to do things it has been unwilling to do in the last several decades.

And then on top of that, Economist's additional condition for peace is an (external) force to provide security for Gaza. Which Arab states, who must surely provide it, have been very unwilling to provide for the last 40 years, and show no real signs of doing so now. For all that they claim to care about the Palestinians - though often in reality they seem to largely think they are a damn nuisance.

So I find this rather unpersuasive. Israel can go in there and beat up Hamas, but does that lead to peace? Is it still justifiable to go and beat up Hamas like that, with all of the deaths of innocents along the way, if it doesn't? I worry that Israel thinks, well at least we'll get a decade or two of quietude while they rebuild themselves, until we have to go and beat them up again.

Democracy was previously initiated in the Palestinian polity, but it soon withered, and it will wither again, as the conditions for its prolongation are not there. Fortunately I don't agree that this is a necessary condition for peace. Israel has longstanding peaceable relations with Jordan and Egypt, which are not democratic. That is because the rulers of those countries see conflict with Israel as having a large downside for them as rulers, a situation which is likely to persist. But I don't really see how you create those conditions, endurably, albeit feasible than democracy, in Palestine, especially as long as Gaza remains a large open air prison camp. First resolve that.

And I agree that an external security force is the only way that there will be any progress at all. Arab states willing to provide that currently offer some small scale of it, but perhaps only because they can see it adds up to nowhere near enough, and so are fairly confident won't be called on. But, if this is a condition for peace, and frankly I believe it, then surely we need to know that is forthcoming before setting forth on campaigns that will inevitably kill a lot of people.

Is there not some possibility that if Israel did in fact restrain itself from responding with massive force, not take the provocation, it might garner a bit more respect from the Palestinian people? Because ultimately they probably need that to get anywhere?

[jimbob]

The Economist wrote a leader headed "Why Israel must fight on" which I find rather unpersuasive. They do suggest that Israel should be rather more careful over Palestinian civilians than currently seems to be the case, but that seems to be something you have to say for acceptability, while knowing it is unlikely to happen. Their premise is that "while Hamas runs Gaza, peace is impossible", concluding that any productive way forward starts with Israel's military eradication of Hamas.

Then they write, "The Palestinians need moderate leaders with a democratic mandate." Which is unlikely to happen. And of course a bunch of requirements on Israel to do things it has been unwilling to do in the last several decades.

And then on top of that, Economist's additional condition for peace is an (external) force to provide security for Gaza. Which Arab states, who must surely provide it, have been very unwilling to provide for the last 40 years, and show no real signs of doing so now. For all that they claim to care about the Palestinians - though often in reality they seem to largely think they are a damn nuisance.

So I find this rather unpersuasive. Israel can go in there and beat up Hamas, but does that lead to peace? Is it still justifiable to go and beat up Hamas like that, with all of the deaths of innocents along the way, if it doesn't? I worry that Israel thinks, well at least we'll get a decade or two of quietude while they rebuild themselves, until we have to go and beat them up again.

Democracy was previously initiated in the Palestinian polity, but it soon withered, and it will wither again, as the conditions for its prolongation are not there. Fortunately I don't agree that this is a necessary condition for peace. Israel has longstanding peaceable relations with Jordan and Egypt, which are not democratic. That is because the rulers of those countries see conflict with Israel as having a large downside for them as rulers, a situation which is likely to persist. But I don't really see how you create those conditions, endurably, albeit feasible than democracy, in Palestine, especially as long as Gaza remains a large open air prison camp. First resolve that.

And I agree that an external security force is the only way that there will be any progress at all. Arab states willing to provide that currently offer some small scale of it, but perhaps only because they can see it adds up to nowhere near enough, and so are fairly confident won't be called on. But, if this is a condition for peace, and frankly I believe it, then surely we need to know that is forthcoming before setting forth on campaigns that will inevitably kill a lot of people.

Is there not some possibility that if Israel did in fact restrain itself from responding with massive force, not take the provocation, it might garner a bit more respect from the Palestinian people? Because ultimately they probably need that to get anywhere?

Israel was doing exactly what Hamas would have expected when Hamas was planning the atrocity. I can think of several reasons why that would be a bad idea.

I don't know how they could have reacted but a land invasion is not clever. I don't know if they had the ability for drone strikes on senior Hamas commanders.

[Sciolus]

So I find this rather unpersuasive. Israel can go in there and beat up Hamas, but does that lead to peace? Is it still justifiable to go and beat up Hamas like that, with all of the deaths of innocents along the way, if it doesn't? I worry that Israel thinks, well at least we'll get a decade or two of quietude while they rebuild themselves, until we have to go and beat them up again.

One thing that has become abundantly clear over the last couple of decades is that it's a great deal easier to topple a government than to install one. If you have enough popular support, and a strong external peace-keeping force, you might just get a frail, unstable democracy. If you're lucky, you'll get a tolerably benign dictatorship. Very likely, you'll get warlords, civil war and anarchy.

Attempting it the way Israel seems to be doing can only end in direct rule by Israel enforced through violence and suppression, or increased warlordism and extremism.

[monkey]

Attempting it the way Israel seems to be doing can only end in direct rule by Israel enforced through violence and suppression, or increased warlordism and extremism.

Netanyahu this morning was suggesting that Israel would be doing security in Gaza after the war, i.e. starting the proper occupation again. He seemed to be implying that this would be something like Area B in the West Bank, where Israel do the security, but the PA do the civic stuff. But no one seemed sure about that, because there was no detail.