Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

They’re calling for an end to the conflict not the extermination of the Jews.

Yeah, sure. It is all about supporting victims of a conflict!

No.  It is not about caring about innocent victims, we have many wars with innocent victims, and they don't gather crowds.

It is not about caring about the right of a nation to self-determination because I fail to see protests supporting, for example, Kurds, against whom Turkey takes unlawful military action quite regularly.

MORE than 20,000 took to the streets of London today as people came from across the country to oppose Turkey’s war on the Kurdish people of northern Syria.
The demonstration is believed to be the largest ever organised by the Kurdish community in Britain as they took to the streets to “Rise up for Rojava” – the largely Kurdish region under attack by the Turkish state.

It was part of a global day of action as outrage grows over the illegal invasion being conducted by Nato’s second largest army allied with jihadist mercenaries from the Syrian National Army – also known as the Free Syrian Army.
The demonstration took place as France imposed an arms embargo against Turkey, whose right-wing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan exploited the departure of US troops from the region to invade Rojava, the Kurdish region of Syria.

It isn't Muslim solidarity because I see no anti-Chinese protest, who outright ban Islam in a Muslim region and keep Muslims in concentration camps.

Hundreds of protesters rallied outside the Chinese Embassy in London on Saturday calling for the freedom of Uyghur muslims, as the official building took down its flag, according to protest organisers and eyewitnesses.

The protest was organised by Islam21C - a project set up to provide digital representation for British muslims - with support from over 50 Muslim organisations and was attended by over 2,500 demonstrators, Islam21C told The New Arab.
Protesters took to the streets and social media using the hashtag #Stand4Uyghurs to demand the shutdown of China's concentration camps, which experts estimate over one million muslims have been incarcerated in, in a Beijing crackdown against those practising Islam in Xinjiang.

I should also add there is a nearly all-year round awareness campaign held by Falun Gong outside the British museum. They are pretty useful despite their small number as many Chinese tourists believe Falun Gong are a death cult and the Chinese government are "saving" them, and are shocked to find out the Chinese government is harvesting their organs.

It isn't solidarity with Arabs either, few gave an F when Assad, together with non-Arab intervents in the form of Russia and Iran, killed Arabs in masse. Neither is there any interest in stopping the war in Sudan...

The Labour leader told MPs: "There will be some in this house who say that Britain should not contemplate action even when it is limited, because we do not know precisely the consequences that will follow.
"As I said, I am not with those who rule out action, and the horrific events unfolding in Syria ask us to consider all available options, but we owe it to the Syrian people, to our own country and to the future security of our world to scrutinise any plans on the basis of the consequences they will have."

However one senior Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick resigned as a shadow minister before the vote, saying he was "opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop".
Senior Tories criticised the government. David Davis, a former Tory leadership candidate and shadow home secretary said: "We must consider, being where we've been before in this House, that our intelligence as it stands might just be wrong because it was before and we have got to be very, very hard in testing it."
Cheryl Gillan, a former Wales secretary under Cameron, said: "I do not have enough accurate or verifiable information to support direct UK military action in Syria." Recalling the vote on Iraq, she said she was cautious because she "cannot sit in this House and be duped again".
But Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the commons public administration committee, called on the House of Commons to stop "post-Iraq panic paralysing the country".

UK narrowly avoided declaring war on Assad largely out of post-Iraq and Libyan war wariness. MPs had grown tired of blowing up Arab states and handing the reins to terrorists. It was around the time some of the moderate rebels Cameron suggested we arm started cutting people's hearts out and eating them on camera that public opinion turned against intervention, as Cameron could not make a case that this war wouldn't produce more insecurity, not less, or that it would not escalate with Russia, or that it would not result in a ground deployment of British troops. Actions targeting ISIS however proved more successful.

What makes this conflict unique? Israel is one of the sides, that's what. It means that the core motivation of those protests is either hatred of specifically Israel or hatred towards "the West" and "its Israeli outpost on Muslim lands" or good old antisemitism.

Besides, I am neither deaf nor blind. I see and hear their slogans. Those are not slogans of people wanting peace. "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" are quite clear. And those are not the worst stuff that can be heard.

UK government opposed Turkey's invasion of Kurds in Syria & criticised the US government publicly for withdrawing its troops from Kurdish areas. UK government stance on Syria, Russia, China, Iran et cetera speaks for itself. Notably, in all those cases British public and British government opinions align. You're really comparing countries where British government policy is to oppose the offensive actions of other states to one where the British government is arming the state and politically supporting the state it recognises as illegally occupying another. It would be very hard for the British public not to notice when both Labour and Conservative party leadership announced immediate and vociferous support for Israeli military action, opposed any ceasefire calls, and have sent for the deployment of a Royal Navy taskgroup & RAF assets from Akrotioi to support Israel. You would see similar protests if the UK government suddenly decided tomorrow it was pro-Russia and sending weapons to Putin

[hector13]

They’re calling for an end to the conflict not the extermination of the Jews.

Yeah, sure. It is all about supporting victims of a conflict!

No.  It is not about caring about innocent victims, we have many wars with innocent victims, and they don't gather crowds.

False.

It is not about caring about the right of a nation to self-determination because I fail to see protests supporting, for example, Kurds, against whom Turkey takes unlawful military action quite regularly.

False.

It isn't Muslim solidarity because I see no anti-Chinese protest, who outright ban Islam in a Muslim region and keep Muslims in concentration camps.

False.

It isn't solidarity with Arabs either, few gave an F when Assad, together with non-Arab intervents in the form of Russia and Iran, killed Arabs in masse. Neither is there any interest in stopping the war in Sudan...

False.

Unless your assertion is that they aren’t doing them anymore? There’s only so much a crowd can protest before it bell becomes an incoherent call for “something different”.

What makes this conflict unique? Israel is one of the sides, that's what. It means that the core motivation of those protests is either hatred of specifically Israel or hatred towards "the West" and "its Israeli outpost on Muslim lands" or good old antisemitism.

Of course it has nothing to do with this newest page in the conflict being a month old and having been in the news every single day since. The BBC have been doing rolling updates since it started.

Besides, I am neither deaf nor blind. I see and hear their slogans. Those are not slogans of people wanting peace. "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" are quite clear. And those are not the worst stuff that can be heard.

I didn’t say there was zero anti-semitism in the crowds. Folks who hold those views will be emboldened by the anonymity of a crowd to share them, in much the same way the far-right protesters were emboldened to be there by the false claims from the British Home Secretary that the pro-Palestine protests would target the Cenotaph on Armistice Day - which they neither were planning to or spontaneously did - and the police treat left-wing protests and right-wing protests differently.

“From the river to the sea” is also a contentious one. I don’t doubt that there are anti-Semites that do use it to mean extermination of Jews on that land, but there are others that use it to mean they want peace there. Jumping to the conclusion that everyone there, who was broadly peaceful, was using it to call for the elimination of Jews is a ludicrous jump to make.

PPE: LW got it in before me, but whatever, I’ll post this and read that now.

[feelotraveller]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/29/more-childrens-deaths-in-gaza-in-3-weeks-than-annual-total-since-2019-ngo?traffic_source=KeepReading

According to reports from the UN Secretary-General on children and armed conflict, a total of 2,985 children were killed across 24 countries in 2022, 2,515 in 2021, and 2,674 in 2020 across 22 countries, Save the Children said.

That article references 3,324 children killed in Gaza by 28 October (according to Save the Children).  By 8 November the figures are at least 4,237 Palestinian children killed in Gaza since the start of the conflict, with another 1,350 reported missing and most likely dead.

Facts can be useful in showing the scope of this conflict.

PreEdit: Oh, other posts have come in.   

[anewaname]

Somewhere in the recent information about Gaza, I'd heard/read that 50% of the population is 18 or younger. There's going to be a cultural difference between what a child and an adult is, but...

[Starver]

I am unhappy that (so far as I can see) the 'peace marches' aren't simultaneously condemning Hamas's role in all of this. The Palestinian's (second-?)worst enemy, arguably.

For all kinds of reasons, I really can't blame Israel for doing something in response, even if I'm not willing to give them the carte-blanche that they've run with. To do nothing would invite more problems, probably, than they're inviting now. Somewhere between, of course, there is surely a sweeter-spot.

No, I'd not join the 'pro-Ceasefire' marches, in the form they are. Have no problem with the people on the march (from what I've seen, the counter-protesters were the more troublesome ones) and, until I see the news, I'm supportive of their general underlying message. But it's lacking a lot of possible nuance. Civilians on both sides have been grossly wronged for many a year, as previously discussed, and something actually unilateral (that rewards none of the warmongering elements within and beyond the territories concerned) is desperately needed.

[Frumple]

Somewhere in the recent information about Gaza, I'd heard/read that 50% of the population is 18 or younger. There's going to be a cultural difference between what a child and an adult is, but...

The median age in the strip was (probably still is, even with over ten thousand new corpses) 18, yeah. Which means half of its population is 18 or younger. Basically the entirety of them would have few to no memories of a time when gaza wasn't under blockade.

It's one of the myriad tragedies about the whole thing, really

[Strongpoint]

Guys, are you seriously trying to counter my words by giving links to protests that were much smaller in scale? OK, I should have been more precise with my wording but do you really think I am stupid enough to think that a city of the size of London with such a diverse population didn't produce some protests for nearly everything?

Now the "It is because the British government is pro-Israeli" part. It is a more valid explanation but the problem with this assumption is that Britain is not the only country with that kind of protests and it doesn't seem to be directly proportional to the level of support to Israel.

___________

Now the children part... Using Al Jazeera as a news source for this war is a questionable idea. They take their numbers directly from the Gazan Health Ministry.

Also, a lot of those children may actually be combatants. We are talking about the side which is not shy of using child soldiers.

And, as I stated it earlier, considering HAMAS human shield tactics, the density of population, and the intensity of the war - Those numbers are very low. It is a pity that innocents die in wars but it is beyond simplistic to call for a ceasefire based only on that.

(looking at how it works in Gaza I feel that Ukraine is idiotic in informational warfare, we should also use estimates we can't prove as proven numbers and "count" victims instantly. I am already seeing tons of "there are more children killed in Gaza in a month than in two years of Ukrainian war" takes and this is a direct result of our idiocy.)

[hector13]

You’re stupid enough to suggest pro-Palestinian protests with hundreds of thousands of people in them are huge anti-Semitic hatefests, so why not? Hate as a motivator doesn’t tend toward peaceful protests, yet the only conflicts were when counter-protesters were shouting racial, anti-Muslim abuse at the larger protests and clashing with police, despite protests across major cities in the UK.

As for the rest… I used to think you had sensible takes.

Child combatants are rarely a problem when your main way of attacking your enemy is dropping bombs on them so… citation needed on the proportion of child combatants to child deaths.

Hamas using human shields doesn’t really make it okay for Israel to kill the human shields, and the human shields don’t really have much choice when the terrorists move in, do they?

The ceasefire isn’t “just” being called because people are dying in a war zone, it’s so aid can get in and give people the basic necessities Israel has denied them when they stopped everything getting in. It’s been a while since I checked, but there were 500 aid trucks going into Gaza daily prior the war starting, and only about 20 daily when they were allowed in via Egypt mid-war. I can’t imagine the need for aid has reduced while Israel is displacing millions, so that’s nowhere near good enough.

[feelotraveller]

UN (OCHA) figures are much the same: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-31 4,104 as of 6 November. (And aljazeera was accurately reporting figures cited by Save the Children https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/gaza-childrens-deaths-in-last-three-weeks-surpasses-total-child- as said above.)

Gazan Health Ministry could be lying but their figures have proven solid for years previous when and where independent verification has been possible.  The international community hold their reporting standards to be very reliable.  The "can't prove" numbers are the 1,300 odd missing children who are likely dead but of whom no verification of their death has been seen.

[hector13]

A question for you: do you actually think it’s possible for Israel to commit war crimes in this conflict? What would the line be for you?

[Schmaven]

.
Hamas using human shields doesn’t really make it okay for Israel to kill the human shields, and the human shields don’t really have much choice when the terrorists move in, do they?

While it is certainly an attrocity for human shields to be killed, the actual war crime is committed by those using human shields in the first place.  Should terrorists be granted immunity to plan future attacks simply because they hide behind innocent civilians?  To some extent, yes, as long as we can intercept or dodge their attacks.  But at a certain point, the terrorists will cause more innocent deaths by being allowed to continue to operate than the number they hide behind.  Should they continue to be granted immunity then?  It's a lot like the trolley problem, there is no good option.  Maybe something could have been done differently in the past to change the present, and maybe some things will change to allow better choices in the future, but the events of October 7th have caused Israel to make some terribly difficult decisions.

[hector13]

I didn’t say they shouldn’t respond to the attacks from Hamas, I said ignoring the human shields is the problem. There are myriad ways Israel could have responded to the October 7th attacks, but they did what they always do and step up the bombing campaign, now with the added wrinkle of blockading electricity and fuel so at some point people aren’t going to be able to get online for warnings, and dropping leaflets means having to go outside and why would you go outside they’re dropping bombs out there!

The main problem with ignoring the human shields is it allows a “because Hamas” excuse to become an acceptable excuse to do horrible things.

(I think there’s a word for it that something is repeated so often and is accepted as truth to justify doing ever more horrible things that I can’t think of that probably describe it better but I am drawing a blank here. I thought cliché would cover it but that doesn’t feel right.)

Like they’re fighting around and bombing near a hospital in Gaza City “because Hamas” have tunnels underneath the hospital, or they bombed an ambulance convoy “because Hamas” use ambulances to shuttle people and materiel around.

“Because Hamas” basically culminates in things like bombing media headquarters providing critical coverage in Gaza “because Hamas” were using the building, which somehow escaped the notice of many groups of seasoned journalists.

If any other country in the world were bombing hospitals in an area under military occupation, there’d be an uproar from world governments across the globe, sanctions and censures aplenty. Israel gets military and financial aid.

[Strongpoint]

A question for you: do you actually think it’s possible for Israel to commit war crimes in this conflict? What would the line be for you?

When there is a war, there are war crimes. I have seen relatively reliable evidence of war crimes committed by the Israeli Army in this war, like executing Hamas fighters who clearly tried to surrender

The problem begins when everything one side does is called a war crime. Don't supply resources directly to the enemy? WAR CRIME. Doing any air strikes that cause any collateral casualties?  WAR CRIME. It is hard to spot actual ones.

There are myriad ways Israel could have responded to the October 7th attacks

Can you name a few?

Like they’re fighting around and bombing near a hospital in Gaza City “because Hamas” have tunnels underneath the hospital, or they bombed an ambulance convoy “because Hamas” use ambulances to shuttle people and materiel around.

But both are true. As soon as one side uses hospitals and ambulances in this way - bombing them stops being a war crime. This is why there are rules for not using hospitals this way.

Because Hamas” basically culminates in things like bombing media headquarters providing critical coverage in Gaza

Yeah, this one was a rather transparent lie. "Hamas intelligence" wasn't the target. But if you are acting as propaganda for one side of the war, you will get hit. USA bombed the infrastructure of media of Irag for "some" reason, too. 

[ChairmanPoo]

What makes this conflict unique? Israel is one of the sides, that's what. It means that the core motivation of those protests is either hatred of specifically Israel or hatred towards "the West" and "its Israeli outpost on Muslim lands" or good old antisemitism.

Is it just me or this resembles a lot Vatnik whataboutism when they start bemoaning Western support of Ukraine?

[Strongpoint]

What makes this conflict unique? Israel is one of the sides, that's what. It means that the core motivation of those protests is either hatred of specifically Israel or hatred towards "the West" and "its Israeli outpost on Muslim lands" or good old antisemitism.

Is it just me or this resembles a lot Vatnik whataboutism when they start bemoaning Western support of Ukraine?

There are other answers to the "what makes it different?" other than "they just dislike Russia"

1) It is the only current war that is a clear, open cross-border invasion of one UN-recognized state by another. Others are either civil wars, or hybrid wars, or wars with countries with limited recognition.

2) Europeans care more about fellow Europeans than some Africans or Asians. One may call it racism but it is how it actually works.

3) The fall of Ukraine will actually bring trouble to Western countries. Far more trouble, then, let's say, Assad's victory in Syria.

For this war, neither of those answers work