News/Current Affairs thread

[d-d-d-dAz]

46 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

I’m getting the impression you think that I think the Israelis are the only ones who should stop killing people. This isn’t the case. 

Sure. But Hamas have said they won't stop under any circumstances, so the effect is the same unless Hamas no longer exist, isn't it?

The argument is cyclical, and I don't think I have any fresh points to make besides we seem to want the same thing, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as Israel laying down their arms.

[Chris B]

16 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

The argument is cyclical, and I don't think I have any fresh points to make besides we seem to want the same thing, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as Israel laying down their arms.

What's the version of success here that doesn't involve Israel laying down their arms?

[BomberPat]

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I'm capitalising because i'm not actually talking about sober discussions of how a real, meaningful ceasefire could work. I'm talking primarily about people who deal in slogan's, not actually thinking about what they're asking for or how it works.

But again, as I think Keith said earlier, it's not the job of a student waving a banner on a protest match to formulate the hows and the whys, that's the job of politicians. Removing the Israel/Palestine conflict from the equation entirely, there are lots of things that I want to see achieved politically - universal basic income, nuclear disarmament, public ownership of basic utilities and the break-up of energy and transport monopolies that implies - but the fact that I haven't a fucking clue how to achieve any of those things doesn't mean that I feel they are any less essential, or make my calls for them any less meaningful. It's the politicians' job to act on their constituents' behalf, and to do what is best for them, and for my part of that bargain as a constituent, it's my job to make it clear to said politicians what it is I want. In the case of tens of thousands of people all over the world, what they want is a ceasefire, and in a just world it would be the job of their elected representatives to work to deliver that ceasefire unto them. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

8 minutes ago, Chris B said:

What's the version of success here that doesn't involve Israel laying down their arms?

I think that's an eventual part of whatever comes next, but there's probably a lot of road left before we get there. I suspect, as above, it involves Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the EU and the US finding some way of combining their collective international power to leverage Iran into stepping Hamas down. That's probably the nicest route, and would likely never involve a full laying down of arms, but maybe Israel retreat back to beyond their pre-war borders, institute a DMZ or have a massively increased border presence in perpetuity.

The other alternative is this horrific campaign continues until the situation escalates even further and the region explodes, or Israel are against all odds successful in turning Gaza into rubble, taking Hamas and a lot of the civilian population out. 

And, @BomberPat I agree with you - people should be free to protest on anything they wish, but people who lead those movements should be more upfront that what they're offering is a slogan and as you and @Keith Houchen have very maturely set out, they have no idea of how to deliver that slogan as a policy, or if its even possible. You are quite right, that's the point of protest but I think we are at the point now where people think that it's self-evidently right that Israel should stop, and that in and of itself is a policy and what should happen. It's not. It's a direction of travel, and it's a direction of travel that the elected politicians in this country and in American *are* travelling - Cameron has spoke about his fear war crimes have been committed, Starmer, Sunak and Biden have all called for that 'sustainable ceasefire'.

I have no problem with people protesting for whatever they want, but there has to be some realisation at some point that doesn't county as policy. I could chant for a MILLION POUNDS FOR EVERYONE - and as hard as my elected officials might work to make that happen, it may simply not be possible or certainly not in the format i'm presenting it. As i've said before, I too would desperately want to see a ceasefire but the stated position of the side currently under bombardment is that the minute they can, they *will* strike again. So it's not as simple as Israel just stopping, which was my only point to begin with.

A sustainable ceasefire should be everyone's priority, one that establishes a balance of power within the region that keeps tensions cool for a generation or more. That probably doesn't happen if October 7 is repeated, as I suspect what comes next could be even worst.

Edited January 15 by d-d-d-dAz

[SuperBacon]

8 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Removing the Israel/Palestine conflict from the equation entirely, there are lots of things that I want to see achieved politically - universal basic income, nuclear disarmament, public ownership of basic utilities and the break-up of energy and transport monopolies that implies - but the fact that I haven't a fucking clue how to achieve any of those things doesn't mean that I feel they are any less essential, or make my calls for them any less meaningful.

This.

"So what would your solution be?" Luckily I don't have to come up with one, although of course I have things I would like to happen. 

I'm not a diplomat, I don't have 400 degrees in international relations, I'm not a politician, and I don't get paid to come up with complex answers to complex issues.

Another thing that is missing is there is nothing wrong with saying sometimes "Do you know what? I'm not sure I'm qualified enough or have done enough research to be able to give a useful answer on that" 

Everyone HAS to have an opinion or an answer, when the best thing to do would be to step out sometimes and bow to the experts.

Sorry, that's a soapbox rant and not aimed at anyone here, it just fucks me off that everyone has to have a say (mostly uninformed) all the time.

I don't have the answer to the Middle East. I DO have an answer to solving the swan crossing problem in my village but the bloody parish council won't listen! Let me sort that out first.

 

[Keith Houchen]

41 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

But Hamas have said they won't stop under any circumstances, so the effect is the same unless Hamas no longer exist, isn't it?

It’s war, essentially they’re playing to the crowd. Zelenskyy and Putin say the same sort of thing, as did the IRA. But once you can get them round a table, things change. 
 

EDIT Fucked up the quotes. 
“A sustainable ceasefire should be everyone's priority, one that establishes a balance of power within the region that keeps tensions cool for a generation ormore. That probably doesn't happen if October 7 isrepeated,”

Or if the decades long apartheid and murder is repeated / continued. 

Edited January 15 by Keith Houchen

[Loki]

I’d like you to consider a scenario whereby your elected leaders ARE trying to engineer a ceasefire, but that achieving that is actually a lot harder than we (with our lack of expertise) realise, and that far from bowing to the experts we are standing on a soapbox outside their house shouting abuse at them.

 What @d-d-d-dAz has been saying is that HE wants a ceasefire but believes, as most experienced international politicians do, that you need to know the next step (and a few more after that) before you will get either side to put their weapons down.

 Edit: if you read between the lines I think it’s fairly obvious both our govt and the US one want Israel to stop, but don’t think there’s any real advantage to threatening them at this point, and instead ro publicly put their arms around an ally whilst privately using diplomacy to persuade them.

Edited January 15 by Loki

[JLM]

I can see why publicly putting an arm around an ally who is currently committing an atrocity (and has been committing ongoing atrocities for decades) when so many other nations are condemning them might be seen as spineless at best and complicit at worst. I can also see why there would be a lack of trust in our current Tory overlords to be quietly doing the right thing behind closed doors. 

Are we also to believe that the 153 countries who voted for ceasefire don’t have any experienced international politicians in charge? The abstainers and those against are the only sensibles? 

Many of the people protesting are also campaigning for an end to Israel’s decades long oppression of the Palestinian people. Ceasefire now but also Free Palestine. 

Sure, shouting in the streets won’t make it happen. Naive, idealistic, misguided even, whatever you want to call it, I still think it’s worthwhile for people to make their voices heard and apply what pressure they can. I won’t be so arrogant as to claim that displaced Palestinians internationally will feel any better because Londoners are waving  placards, but as a human being I’d rather the worldwide media coverage showed widespread and highly visible recognition of their plight than indifference. 

 

 

Edited January 15 by JLM

[d-d-d-dAz]

19 minutes ago, JLM said:

Are we also to believe that the 153 countries who voted for ceasefire don’t have any experienced international politicians in charge? The abstainers and those against are the only sensibles? 

No, but primarily because countries votes in international institutions are often dictated by the position of their allies, and particularly the position of the superpower it would most benefit them if they became the leading voice in the region or globally.

I actually think South Africa are probably acting in good faith in their case, but by and large international institutions are dick measuring contests for the countries actually in charge. It's just that the US used to be able control a bigger spread of countries than it does now.

[Loki]

44 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

actually think South Africa are probably acting in good faith in their case

South Africa hate the Israelis because Israel was one of the few Western governments to support the Apartheid government in the 70s and 80s.   The two countries often saw themselves in the same light - 
 

Quote

"We view Israel's position and problems with understanding and sympathy. Like us they have to deal with terrorist infiltration across the border; and like us they have enemies bent on their destruction." SA PM Vorster

The Israelis needed oil after the Yom Kippur War and the collapse of trading with their neighbours, and South Africa needed arms and military training.  So there was a lot of quiet co-operation between the governments.

Obviously the current South African government is ANC, the very people who the Israelis were training the Afrikaans to kill, so they take great pleasure in sticking the knife into Israel whenever the opportunity arises.

[Carbomb]

That doesn't detract from the good faith of SA's case, as far as I can see. A lot of countries have had negative interactions with Israel - that shouldn't preclude them from being considered as being in good faith if they bring a case for genocide, or any kind of legal action, against Israel.

Edited January 15 by Carbomb

[d-d-d-dAz]

13 minutes ago, Loki said:

South Africa hate the Israelis because Israel was one of the few Western governments to support the Apartheid government in the 70s and 80s.   The two countries often saw themselves in the same light - 
 

The Israelis needed oil after the Yom Kippur War and the collapse of trading with their neighbours, and South Africa needed arms and military training.  So there was a lot of quiet co-operation between the governments.

Obviously the current South African government is ANC, the very people who the Israelis were training the Afrikaans to kill, so they take great pleasure in sticking the knife into Israel whenever the opportunity arises.

Yeah, good points, though I'd say a bilateral friction, or difference in ideology, is more of a pure reason to differ on the international stage.

My core belief is a capital R 'Realist' one that  all IR is about great powers and their jockeying for position, so seeing two low to mid level powers who just don't like each other thrashing it out is quite refreshing.

[BigJag]

Great discussion going on. I wish i had the nous to actively participate. Unfortunately use of words like "reductionist" and "depredations" make my head spin. Some very salient points have been raised. Which have gone a fair way to helping making a little more sense of what is happening at the moment.

Sadly the horror continues. There's reports coming out of a terrorist attack in Israel today. Small in scale. People have been killed.

There are also reports of the US transporting more troops and armaments to the area. Unsure of what their intentions are.

https://x.com/DalrympleWill/status/1747298822047572372?s=20

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-16/ty-article/.premium/israel-extends-emergency-order-preventing-detained-gazans-from-seeing-a-lawyer/0000018d-114c-d71c-ad9f-53ce280d0000

Edited January 17 by BigJag

[Keith Houchen]

He does have a point, so he does. 

 

[JLM]

Jesus I know there have been a variety of takes in this thread and we don’t all agree, but imagine recording that. Looking at this horror show and finding that slogan to be the most upsetting part of it.