Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic
- This topic has 823 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 22 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hamas’ incursion into Israel on October 7 transformed the politics of the Middle East. Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit (I-Unit) has carried out a forensic analysis of the events of that day – examining seven hours of footage from CCTV, dashcams, personal phones and headcams of dead Hamas fighters, and drawing up a comprehensive list of those killed.
In October 7, the I-Unit reveals widespread human rights abuses by Hamas fighters and others who followed them through the fence from Gaza into Israel.
But the investigation also found that many of the worst stories that came out in the days following the attack were false. This was especially true of atrocities that were used repeatedly by politicians in Israel and the West to justify the ferocity of the bombardment of the Gaza Strip, such as the mass killing of babies and allegations of widespread and systematic rape.
In particular the I-Unit reveals that claims by the Israel Defence Force that it found 8 burned babies at a house in Kibbutz Be’eri were entirely untrue. There were no babies in the house and the 12 civilians inside were killed by Israeli forces when they stormed the house. This was one of a number of incidents where the police and army appear to have killed Israeli citizens.
The SWP goes completely bonkers:
https://twitter.com/socialistworker/status/1772631818883252320/photo/1
I might be misremembering but didn’t the SWP also support the military dictators in Argentina in their war against British mining and oil interests in the Falklands?
The Stop the War Coalition is organising a fringe meeting today at the teachers’ union conference in Bournemouth:
The main title is: STOP THE TORY WAR MACHINE!
Does this mean they think the British capitalist state’s war machine will become more acceptable when Labour takes over later this year (with their support)?
Typical case of mistakenly (or opportunistically) blaming the Tories rather than capitalism.
It’s starting to get a bit disturbing, people are beginning to imply that the Labour Party is under the thumb of Israel (or Labour Friends of Israel), or that “agents of a foreign power” are directing policy.
Of course, there is an Israel lobby, and rightly so, there will be lobbies for every country on Earth: and, just as Winston Churchill lobbied for the UK in the US, Israel pitches for its interest in the UK and US. It may well be more successful than others, but largely because it aligns with UK/US interests in the region.
But, the implication that “foreign agents” are directing British policy has some ugly forbears, and could lead to some very dark places. The egregious Galloway is feeding on that, with his patriotic party, and, seemingly, the SWP are becoming more extreme.
Pinch of salt/war propaganda time, so lets see how far this story travels, according to this article Israel used an AI system to identify targets, i.e. Hamas operatives, and positively targeted them at their family homes.
They stayed within the rules of war because they were targeting military operatives (or reasonably believed them to be so) and allowed a margin of civilian casualties (rather than directly targeting civilians intentionally, this is a legalistic hair splitting argument, and it may be that international jurisprudence may not like it – my rough opinion is Israel has worked out what it wants to do, and constructed enough legal cover to enable it).
“In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.”
Note the IDF’s official formulation “The IDF does not carry out attacks when the collateral damage expected from the attack is excessive in relation to the military advantage.” The wiggle room is: what is excessive (especially as they are claiming the threat from Hamas is existential for Israel).
The Guardian has an IDF response to the story:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-defence-forces-response-to-claims-about-use-of-lavender-ai-database-in-gaza“The “system” your questions refer to is not a system, but simply a database whose purpose is to cross-reference intelligence sources, in order to produce up-to-date layers of information on the military operatives of terrorist organizations. This is not a list of confirmed military operatives eligible to attack.”
So, they admit Lavender exists, but maintain that its contents/output was subject to further verification, this is important because:
“According to international humanitarian law, a person who is identified as a member of an organized armed group (like the Hamas’ military wing), or a person who directly participates in hostilities, is considered a lawful target. This legal rule is reflected in the policy of all law-abiding countries, including the IDF’s legal practice and policy, which did not change during the course of the war.”
and ” In accordance with the rules of international law, the assessment of the proportionality of a strike is conducted by the commanders on the basis of all the information available to them before the strike, and naturally not on the basis of its results in hindsight.”
The point is, you can make such calculations very quickly, and apply a lower than usual bar.
“The IDF outright rejects the claim regarding any policy to kill tens of thousands of people in their homes.”
Again, note the precise formulation, it has a policy to kill Hamas militants, and a procedure that locates them in their homes, that is not a policy to kill them in their home.
The US (and its satellites) will continue to supply arms to Israel, not so much (or even at all) to bomb Gaza but as a counter to Iran. That’s what Israel is for as far as they are concerned.
If the WSM is right in saying that all wars are waged for economic reasons, then what were the economic reasons for the Arab-Israeli War (1948) & the Six-Day War (1967)?*
*I haven’t included the October War (1973) because Egypt wanted to re-take the Sinai Peninsula in that conflict.
Here’s what we said at the time (when Israel was seen as the underdog):
If you are looking for a more immediate economic issue there was the closure to Israeli shipping of the trade route through the Straits of Tiran which Israel had declared would be an act of war.
3 sons of Hamas’ billionaire Terror Leader have been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
Ismail Haniyeh, who lives in Qatar with an estimated net worth of $4 billion, is the leader of Hamas and was behind the Oct 7th attack.
3 of his sons have been eliminated with reports saying several of his grandchildren were also taken out in the strike.
The strike took place in Gaza City’s Shati Camp.
Source: Times of Israel
The article you shared, ALB, was half-enlightening & half-bewildering.
It was enlightening because it showed that the Six-Day War was a proxy war between the major ‘power blocks’ in the world. But it was bewildering because weren’t some of the countries that have been at war with Israel also allied with the West?
This quote from the article is precedent:
‘One thing that is sure is that the Middle East’s unhappy history of tension and conflict will continue. So will the hypocrisy with which it is all supported. In the recent war, for example, all the big powers expressed their regret at the opening of hostilities, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was their arms shipments which had made the whole thing possible.’
“‘3 sons of Hamas’ billionaire Terror Leader have been killed in an Israeli airstrike.'”
It’s easy to forget that Hamas isn’t a grass-roots organisation, but is led my millionaires & billionaires.
It’s easy to see the bias in that Times of Israel report; for example: use of the words – eliminated’ & ‘taken out’ – instead of ‘killed’.
Jordan could be classified as pro-West in 1967 but certainly not Egypt under Nasser or Syria under Assad’s father or Iraq which were all governed by Pan-Arabists who claimed to be ”socialists” and bought their arms from Russia.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.