Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[crimson5pheonix]

Labour Conference Policy 2018, 2019 & 2021.

Please find below the composite motions passed by Labour Party Conferences 2018, 2019 and 2021 on Palestine. 1. Palestine Motion, Labour Party Conference 2021 Conference condemns the ongoing Nakba …

labourandpalestine.org.uk

I believe 2021 was the last update. Labour's - and I am assuming by extension Starmer's - position remains that the answer to Israel-Palestine remains a political two-state solution that guarantees the freedom, rights, security and prosperity of Palestinians in their own state, and which specifically criticises Israel for every greater encroachments on Palestinian land.

The question then is what sort of "Zionist" Starmer is. If we want to say he believes in the right of the State of Israel to exist, yes he is a Zionist, but in a way that is uncontroversial, probably even for you and Sean. If we mean that Israel has a continuing right to steal land from, oppress, and deny the Palestinians independence, then from available evidence he is not, and calling him one is just inaccurate.

However, even someone not a Zionist under the latter definition can support - hopefully within limits of proportionate action - Israel's right to defend itself and its civilians. The obvious problem being that Israeli military reprisals against Gaza are not proportionate, which is why Starmer (and just about everyone else with the possible exception of Biden) are rowing back on the their earlier, bombastic support.

And why just about every major leader in the West was such a fucking idiot for being so gung-ho.

One might note that despite saying it should follow international law, Israel cutting off power and water to Gaza was in fact a war crime and by definition, against international law. So yes, I do say he's a Zionist. In the second of your definitions, because he's advocating for Palestinians to leave their land to the Israelis. Quite literally, condoning the genocide of the Palestinians.

 

[Silvanus]

No it doesn't because the Tory press is full of Zionists, the same way it's full of landlords and defense contractors.

The Tory press doesn't give a flying fuck about the expansion of Israel or colonialism 2,000 miles away.

Also it's hilarious that you said you revived this thread, Sean had been keeping the thread alive for months with updates on Israel's crimes long before October.

Most of which were throwaway tweets that elicited no real engagement or discussion. It was a zombie for months.

The point is, I've been quite frequently talking about Israel's crimes. To now say I'm 'deflecting' from them because I disputed that one thing was down to Zionism is just foolish.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh no!

@Seanchaidh the Englishman is colonizing your thread! They can't keep getting away with this!

 

[Ag3ma]

One might note that despite saying it should follow international law, Israel cutting off power and water to Gaza was in fact a war crime and by definition, against international law. So yes, I do say he's a Zionist. In the second of your definitions, because he's advocating for Palestinians to leave their land to the Israelis. Quite literally, condoning the genocide of the Palestinians.

Unfashionable as it may be to apply some substantive consideration to what people actually in the Twitter / TikTok era when we could just grasp whatever interpretation suits our biases...

Okay. Let's take that clip from another angle. Starmer clearly said that Israel should abide by international law. That is uncontestable. Therefore, implicitly, he states Israel should not cut the power and water.

In wider context, Starmer was asked whether Israel could 1) besiege Gaza and 2a) cut its power and 2b) water. His reply was "I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously everything should be done within international law." He's therefore addressing two questions: It is equally plausible that the "right" was to besiege Gaza (thus following on from his previous line that the questions were a follow-up to), but not necessarily also a right to cut power and water. So it is unclear whether he actually meant the power and water could be cut.

Now, maybe he was saying Israel should cut the water and power not aware that cutting water and power was illegal under international law, or maybe he wasn't saying Israel should cut water and power. I don't know which, and despite your apparent confidence, neither do you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Unfashionable as it may be to apply some substantive consideration to what people actually in the Twitter / TikTok era when we could just grasp whatever interpretation suits our biases...

Okay. Let's take that clip from another angle. Starmer clearly said that Israel should abide by international law. That is uncontestable. Therefore, implicitly, he states Israel should not cut the power and water.

In wider context, Starmer was asked whether Israel could 1) besiege Gaza and 2a) cut its power and 2b) water. His reply was "I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously everything should be done within international law." He's therefore addressing two questions: It is equally plausible that the "right" was to besiege Gaza (thus following on from his previous line that the questions were a follow-up to), but not necessarily also a right to cut power and water. So it is unclear whether he actually meant the power and water could be cut.

Now, maybe he was saying Israel should cut the water and power not aware that cutting water and power was illegal under international law, or maybe he wasn't saying Israel should cut water and power. I don't know which, and despite your apparent confidence, neither do you.

Mealy mouthed reply. Do better.

 

[Silvanus]

OK, here's a question.

So the US has billions of dollars worth of arms deals with Saudi Arabia-- arms which have been used in the Saudi intervention in Yemen, and all the accompanying war crimes.

Do we believe that the US supplying Saudi Arabia was due to:
A) the US sharing the Saudi ideology of theocratic Islam?
Or B) the cynical self-serving motive of making money from arms sales?

Spoiler: it's B. And it's not a 'deflection' to identify that.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

OK, here's a question.

So the US has billions of dollars worth of arms deals with Saudi Arabia-- arms which have been used in the Saudi intervention in Yemen, and all the accompanying war crimes.

Do we believe that the US supplying Saudi Arabia was due to:
A) the US sharing the Saudi ideology of theocratic Islam?
Or B) the cynical self-serving motive of making money from arms sales?

Spoiler: it's B. And it's not a 'deflection' to identify that.

Good thing religion didn't come up at all (except from Agema), the US supports Saudi terrorism. The US also supports Israeli terrorism. Literally nobody but you cares about the rationale for why they support these things. It's a distraction from the fact that the US (and UK) support Zionism and make concessions to Zionists for it, just like they make concessions to SA despite being horrible people too.

 

[Silvanus]

Literally nobody but you cares about the rationale for why they support these things.

That's odd, considering you've been arguing pretty aggressively about exactly that question. It was in response to my position about their rationale that you accused me of all sorts of heinous shit, which suggests it matters to you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's odd, considering you've been arguing pretty aggressively about exactly that question. It was in response to my position about their rationale that you accused me of all sorts of heinous shit, which suggests it matters to you.

My position is that your insistence that Starmer's rationale for why he's a Zionist makes him not a Zionist is dumb, because there's video evidence of him supporting the dispossession of Palestinian land for Israeli invasion. I don't care why he supports Zionism, he just does and it's pretty unequivocal.

 

[Silvanus]

My position is that your insistence that Starmer's rationale for why he's a Zionist makes him not a Zionist is dumb, because there's video evidence of him supporting the dispossession of Palestinian land for Israeli invasion. I don't care why he supports Zionism, he just does and it's pretty unequivocal.

You're using 'Zionism' to refer to a set of actions, then, not an ideology. Yet if someone supports actions that align with a certain ideology, but doesn't actually hold that ideology, they're not an adherent. The 'why' is fundamental.

Likewise: the US gov's actions align with the Saudi government's ideology, when they sell them truckloads of weapons. Yet it would be absurd to say the US government actually holds the same ideology, of theocratic Islam. They obviously don't. Their actions just cynically align with a foreign government that does hold it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're using 'Zionism' to refer to a set of actions, then, not an ideology. Yet if someone supports actions that align with a certain ideology, but doesn't actually hold that ideology, they're not an adherent. The 'why' is fundamental.

Likewise: the US gov's actions align with the Saudi government's ideology, when they sell them truckloads of weapons. Yet it would be absurd to say the US government actually holds the same ideology, of theocratic Islam. They obviously don't. Their actions just cynically align with a foreign government that does hold it.

No he's definitely aligned himself with the ideology of Zionism. By all appearances he wants to see Isreal claim all the Palestinian land. Why he wants this doesn't matter. What you need to do is stop making this about religion.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Israeli military reprisals against Gaza are not proportionate

It is strange, given the way Israel began its existence with massacres and displacement, and never having atoned for those crimes but instead piled further crimes on top of them, that we entertain the idea that it has a right to self-defense against the victims of those crimes. That there could possibly be any justice in a military reprisal against a ghetto/concentration camp full of the very same refugees and their descendants that they first displaced and then periodically massacred.

It becomes bizarre when we consider that Israel has done its utmost to prevent any attempt to address or even call attention to its crimes by peaceful means, manipulated the circumstances to make itself immune to the enforcement of international humanitarian law, and has an openly supremacist domestic politics.

Oh no!

@Seanchaidh the Englishman is colonizing your thread! They can't keep getting away with this!

come out ye black and tans

 

[Silvanus]

No he's definitely aligned himself with the ideology of Zionism. By all appearances he wants to see Isreal claim all the Palestinian land. Why he wants this doesn't matter. What you need to do is stop making this about religion.

Y'keep saying the 'why' doesn't matter, while simultaneously making arguments about the 'why'. Because arguing someone is a genuine adherent of an ideology is a 'why'.

Do you think it's fair to say the last several US governments are aligned with the ideology of the Saudi government?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

D'you think it's fair to say the last several US governments are aligned with the ideology of the Saudi government, then?

Yes, see Yemen.

Edit: I don't even think your edit makes sense to you yourself. There is a why to why he's a Zionist, it just doesn't matter because the outcome doesn't change.

 

[Gyrobot]

Remember, in case people thinking Genocidal Organ is a work of fiction...

US police agencies took intelligence directly from IDF, leaked files show

Analysis of BlueLeaks trove also shows police received training on domestic ‘Muslim extremists’ from pro-Israel groups

www.theguardian.com

 

[tstorm823]

It is strange, given the way Israel began its existence with massacres and displacement, and never having atoned for those crimes but instead piled further crimes on top of them, that we entertain the idea that it has a right to self-defense against the victims of those crimes.

Name one nation that began in a different way. Hell, you actively justify modern massacres toward the creation of states you would politically align with.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, see Yemen.

Edit: I don't even think your edit makes sense to you yourself. There is a why to why he's a Zionist, it just doesn't matter because the outcome doesn't change.

Honestly I think we're just using the term in incompatible ways. I'm using the term 'Zionist' to refer to someone who holds a true and personal belief in Zionism, not just someone whose actions happen to align with those of Zionists.

By the same token, the US's hundreds of billions' worth of trade deals with China align with the interests of a supposedly 'communist' government. Yet I'd say it would be absurd to call Biden a communist because of that.

 

[Bedinsis]

Name one nation that began in a different way.

Slovakia.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

@kray97
1 day ago (edited)
If you live in the US, most of the states here (37) have laws which make boycotting Israel illegal. If you want a job with the state/local government, you have to sign a document stating you will not boycott Israel. If you refuse to sign, you can't work for them. If you later participate in a boycott, you can lose your job and also be prosecuted under the law in some states. So before you blanketly blame the USA, understand that its people (most of whom want a ceasefire) are being forced to go along with this by a government that supports Israel no matter what.

Had to look that one up too but yup -


There’s a difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist -

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Honestly I think we're just using the term in incompatible ways. I'm using the term 'Zionist' to refer to someone who holds a true and personal belief in Zionism, not just someone whose actions happen to align with those of Zionists.

By the same token, the US's hundreds of billions' worth of trade deals with China align with the interests of a supposedly 'communist' government. Yet I'd say it would be absurd to call Biden a communist because of that.

I think you're ascribing more to Zionism than what exists. Zionism is just the political belief that the nation of Israel should control the lands formerly belonging to the Judean people before they got passed around the middle east for a few thousand years. It's not hard to align with that ideology, you just have to believe in the expulsion of the Palestinians and Israel reclaiming the land. In that regard, Starmer has called for the expulsion of Palestinians and for Israel to claim the land, so he's a Zionist. Add to that he's purging anti-Zionists from the party, and he's showing all the despotism you would expect out of a war crime enthusiast.