gaza conflict

[Son of Mathonwy]

So much for the ceasefire. It's almost like Israel don't really want one.

Unless there are consequences for Israel, the genocide will continue.

[Puja]

Just looked up what had happened and was struck by the first sentence of the Guardian article, "Israel launched waves of lethal airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza 'until further notice' after a reported attack by Hamas."

Sooooo, we're not longer even pretending anymore that they're not engaging in the war crime of collective punishment, huh? Just openly reporting Israel saying, "Yeah, two of our soldiers were killed, so we're cutting off food to the entire area," but somehow not making that our headline?

Wild.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Just looked up what had happened and was struck by the first sentence of the Guardian article, "Israel launched waves of lethal airstrikes on Sunday and cut off all aid into Gaza 'until further notice' after a reported attack by Hamas."

Sooooo, we're not longer even pretending anymore that they're not engaging in the war crime of collective punishment, huh? Just openly reporting Israel saying, "Yeah, two of our soldiers were killed, so we're cutting off food to the entire area," but somehow not making that our headline?

Wild.

Puja

Another day, another war crime. Except even a supposedly progressive newspaper has given up on calling them out. Another victory for the normalization of genocide.

And if you google IDF killed by own explosives you'll see that they've suffered a load of 'friendly fire' and Darwin-award-level deaths in the last 2 years. If an Israeli soldier dies now, why would we believe them when they say Hamas did it? More likely another case of genosuicide .

[Sandydragon]

So much for the ceasefire. It's almost like Israel don't really want one.

Unless there are consequences for Israel, the genocide will continue.

Its not entirely clear that all the Hamas leadership want one either. Regrettably, without courageous and sensible leadership on both sides, this wont last the long term.

[Puja]

So much for the ceasefire. It's almost like Israel don't really want one.

Unless there are consequences for Israel, the genocide will continue.

Its not entirely clear that all the Hamas leadership want one either. Regrettably, without courageous and sensible leadership on both sides, this wont last the long term.

The difference is very much one of collective punishment and scale though. Israel control the food, water, electricity, fuel, medicine, and internet supply for the entire territory, as well as having a fully-equipped and well-armed military who have the political cover to kill or imprison anyone for any reason and face zero repercussions for it. On the other side, Hamas are a bunch of terrorist fuckwits with guns. The two are very clearly not equivalent.

For Israel to say that deliberately starving 2 million people is an appropriate response to 2 soldiers being murdered, by terrorists, is utterly psychotic. One cannot just shake their head and say, "Ah, well, both sides are being bad, what can you do?"

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I’m not arguing with you on the disproportionate nature of Israeli policy. But if you want long term peace then both sides need to be prepared to take risk and make concessions. I don’t see much evidence of that.

Hamas is very happy to hide behind the Palestinian population and let them get killed, whilst senior leadership enjoys itself in the Gulf States.

For this to work there needs to be a change of government in Israel, which is quite possible, with the hardliners sidelines. There also needs to be regime change Gaza, which I suspect Hamas will not want.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I’m not arguing with you on the disproportionate nature of Israeli policy. But if you want long term peace then both sides need to be prepared to take risk and make concessions. I don’t see much evidence of that.

Hamas is very happy to hide behind the Palestinian population and let them get killed, whilst senior leadership enjoys itself in the Gulf States.

For this to work there needs to be a change of government in Israel, which is quite possible, with the hardliners sidelines. There also needs to be regime change Gaza, which I suspect Hamas will not want.

What is your view of the last couple of years in Israel and Palestine?

[Puja]

I’m not arguing with you on the disproportionate nature of Israeli policy. But if you want long term peace then both sides need to be prepared to take risk and make concessions. I don’t see much evidence of that.

Hamas is very happy to hide behind the Palestinian population and let them get killed, whilst senior leadership enjoys itself in the Gulf States.

For this to work there needs to be a change of government in Israel, which is quite possible, with the hardliners sidelines. There also needs to be regime change Gaza, which I suspect Hamas will not want.

One can't happen without the other though. Israel is keeping Hamas in power at present on two grounds. The first is logistical - there has not been an election since 2014 (and that one involved Hamas fighters "inspecting" polling stations) - Israel have controlled pretty much the entire Gazan security apparatus over that time, so they either do not want an election because it's politically useful to have the boogyman next door or didn't care enough about what Gaza did before the terrorist attack to make one happen.

The second is motivational - Israel has razed the entire area and killed 70,000 people (not including deaths from starvation or illness), and their politicians are openly speaking about continuing and doing worse. This does tend to increase public support for terrorist bastards who promise to take revenge. Plus crushed infrastructure and communities also means crushing any chance of non-democratic regime change because people can't group or organise.

...if you want long term peace then both sides need to be prepared to take risk and make concessions.

What further concessions can the Gazan populace make?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I initially thought this looked like good news - resignations over the BBC's pro-Israel bias (I thought). But no, too anti-Israel apparently. God knows who the replacements will be.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ ... or-general

The editing if the Trump speech looks potentially dodgy though, although I would have to see the unedited speech to really know.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I’m not arguing with you on the disproportionate nature of Israeli policy. But if you want long term peace then both sides need to be prepared to take risk and make concessions. I don’t see much evidence of that.

Hamas is very happy to hide behind the Palestinian population and let them get killed, whilst senior leadership enjoys itself in the Gulf States.

For this to work there needs to be a change of government in Israel, which is quite possible, with the hardliners sidelines. There also needs to be regime change Gaza, which I suspect Hamas will not want.

What is your view of the last couple of years in Israel and Palestine?

Seriously - this wasn't a rhetorical question. I am interested in your overall view of the events in and around Gaza over the last 2 and a bit years.

[Puja]

I initially thought this looked like good news - resignations over the BBC's pro-Israel bias (I thought). But no, too anti-Israel apparently. God knows who the replacements will be.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ ... or-general

The editing if the Trump speech looks potentially dodgy though, although I would have to see the unedited speech to really know.

The editing of the Trump speech was flat out wrong - they take two bits of speech that were not connected in any way and splice it together to make it look like he's being overt and saying the quiet part out loud. There's an argument that that's definitely what he was implying so it's not **really** a misrepresentation, but I personally think that argument's bullshit - making it seem like someone's said something they didn't isn't reporting, it's fiction. If someone's guilty and confesses, hang them with their words, but you can't edit their words and make it look like a confession because you've decided they're guilty.

Mind, Kuennsberg did worse to Corbyn a few years back (edited an interview so that an answer he gave was shown in response to a completely different question) and she got a promotion, so who knows how far this whole new "respect for the truth" thing goes at the BBC?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I initially thought this looked like good news - resignations over the BBC's pro-Israel bias (I thought). But no, too anti-Israel apparently. God knows who the replacements will be.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ ... or-general

The editing if the Trump speech looks potentially dodgy though, although I would have to see the unedited speech to really know.

The editing of the Trump speech was flat out wrong - they take two bits of speech that were not connected in any way and splice it together to make it look like he's being overt and saying the quiet part out loud. There's an argument that that's definitely what he was implying so it's not **really** a misrepresentation, but I personally think that argument's bullshit - making it seem like someone's said something they didn't isn't reporting, it's fiction. If someone's guilty and confesses, hang them with their words, but you can't edit their words and make it look like a confession because you've decided they're guilty.

Mind, Kuennsberg did worse to Corbyn a few years back (edited an interview so that an answer he gave was shown in response to a completely different question) and she got a promotion, so who knows how far this whole new "respect for the truth" thing goes at the BBC?

Puja

Have you seen the missing text from the speech? I've seen it for the first part, ie the 'we'll all march down' really ends with and cheer on the representatives etc, but I haven't seen the words that really came before the 'fight like hell' bit. I'd like to know the actual context for the fighting talk.

Have to say the reporting on this is terrible. If we are to understand the magnitude of the misrepresentation we need to see the original words. None of the reporting I've seen does this fully (although there's a limit on what I've been able to read).

[Puja]

I initially thought this looked like good news - resignations over the BBC's pro-Israel bias (I thought). But no, too anti-Israel apparently. God knows who the replacements will be.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ ... or-general

The editing if the Trump speech looks potentially dodgy though, although I would have to see the unedited speech to really know.

The editing of the Trump speech was flat out wrong - they take two bits of speech that were not connected in any way and splice it together to make it look like he's being overt and saying the quiet part out loud. There's an argument that that's definitely what he was implying so it's not **really** a misrepresentation, but I personally think that argument's bullshit - making it seem like someone's said something they didn't isn't reporting, it's fiction. If someone's guilty and confesses, hang them with their words, but you can't edit their words and make it look like a confession because you've decided they're guilty.

Mind, Kuennsberg did worse to Corbyn a few years back (edited an interview so that an answer he gave was shown in response to a completely different question) and she got a promotion, so who knows how far this whole new "respect for the truth" thing goes at the BBC?

Puja

Have you seen the missing text from the speech? I've seen it for the first part, ie the 'we'll all march down' really ends with and cheer on the representatives etc, but I haven't seen the words that really came before the 'fight like hell' bit. I'd like to know the actual context for the fighting talk.

Have to say the reporting on this is terrible. If we are to understand the magnitude of the misrepresentation we need to see the original words. None of the reporting I've seen does this fully (although there's a limit on what I've been able to read).

Have actually found a transcript helpfully enough: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

The editing of the Trump speech was flat out wrong - they take two bits of speech that were not connected in any way and splice it together to make it look like he's being overt and saying the quiet part out loud. There's an argument that that's definitely what he was implying so it's not **really** a misrepresentation, but I personally think that argument's bullshit - making it seem like someone's said something they didn't isn't reporting, it's fiction. If someone's guilty and confesses, hang them with their words, but you can't edit their words and make it look like a confession because you've decided they're guilty.

Mind, Kuennsberg did worse to Corbyn a few years back (edited an interview so that an answer he gave was shown in response to a completely different question) and she got a promotion, so who knows how far this whole new "respect for the truth" thing goes at the BBC?

Puja

Have you seen the missing text from the speech? I've seen it for the first part, ie the 'we'll all march down' really ends with and cheer on the representatives etc, but I haven't seen the words that really came before the 'fight like hell' bit. I'd like to know the actual context for the fighting talk.

Have to say the reporting on this is terrible. If we are to understand the magnitude of the misrepresentation we need to see the original words. None of the reporting I've seen does this fully (although there's a limit on what I've been able to read).

Have actually found a transcript helpfully enough: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

Puja

Jesus, he should have been arrested for the sheer volume of lies in that speech. But he has deniability. The 'we fight like hell' bit is pretty much on it's own, not connected to the things he says before or after. It's not good and should have been quoted, but it's terrible journalism to edit things the way they did.

Bad, but the BBC made it so much worse by trying to let it lie. Then the Gibb and Prescott (most likely) just leaked it to the Telegraph anyway. The Beeb could and should have admitted the edit was potentially misleading, corrected it and left it there. Might have been a bit of a storm but now everyone who wants to kill the BBC has a weapon. Christ help it if Farage gets power. Like the NHS it will be hard to recognise after 5 years of Reform.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Have you seen the missing text from the speech? I've seen it for the first part, ie the 'we'll all march down' really ends with and cheer on the representatives etc, but I haven't seen the words that really came before the 'fight like hell' bit. I'd like to know the actual context for the fighting talk.

Have to say the reporting on this is terrible. If we are to understand the magnitude of the misrepresentation we need to see the original words. None of the reporting I've seen does this fully (although there's a limit on what I've been able to read).

Have actually found a transcript helpfully enough: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

Puja

Jesus, he should have been arrested for the sheer volume of lies in that speech. But he has deniability. The 'we fight like hell' bit is pretty much on it's own, not connected to the things he says before or after. It's not good and should have been quoted, but it's terrible journalism to edit things the way they did.

Bad, but the BBC made it so much worse by trying to let it lie. Then the Gibb and Prescott (most likely) just leaked it to the Telegraph anyway. The Beeb could and should have admitted the edit was potentially misleading, corrected it and left it there. Might have been a bit of a storm but now everyone who wants to kill the BBC has a weapon. Christ help it if Farage gets power. Like the NHS it will be hard to recognise after 5 years of Reform.

Panorama has form for misleadingly editing others' words, but heads don't usually roll, eg when the editing helped to undermine Corbyn:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ma-341503/

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk ... -panorama/

[Son of Mathonwy]

You may well have seen this but this is a terrifying window on Zionist thinking, or what goes down well in a meeting of the Jewish Federation of North America. Sarah Hurwitz, a mainstream Democrat speechwriter (for Obama amongst others) has the following views:

She bemoans the fact that 'non-mainstream' views on Israel are now easily available in the US, rather than being confined to 'weird bookshops'. That and the 'post-literate' youth culture means that young people (including young Jews) are seeing daily videos of the carnage in Gaza, which makes them (for some reason) resistant to Hurwitz's arguments in favour of Israel (and makes her sound 'obscene' - a moment of almost self-realisation).

She doesn't even argue that the images they see aren't true - she just is unhappy that they see them at all (apparently because of algorithms made by billions of people who 'don't love Jews'). Imagine how unhappy she'd be if Israel allowed journalists into Gaza.

Then she says that 'the smart bet' that Holocaust education would serve as antisemitism education is no longer working because these naïve youngsters are taking the message of the Holocaust to be that big strong people hurting weak, skinny people is wrong, and therefore they are seeing Israel is the enemy. But that's not the message of the Holocaust apparently. Presumably it's that the Jews are always right.

It's just bizarre (and a little sociopathic) that she thinks Holocaust education is pushing young Jews this way rather than normal human empathy. It's clear how limited her own empathy is.

And then she talks about how Western Jews started to treat Judaism as a mere religion, like Protestants. So they see Israelis as mere co-religionists instead of, as she sees them, her siblings. Presumably this means she'd support her siblings even if they were mass-murderers.

All in all, a staggering display of ethnic supremacist thinking. And she probably thinks she's a moderate.

Her main bit is from 9:30-14:55 in the full video. But if you really want to be scared, watch the bald, Israel-based guy, who eagerly anticipates a 'third republic' of Israel to be kicked off by Gaza, presumably even more extreme than the current regime.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/trending/ ... -holocaust