10 ms·

It is likely the following tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511 https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...

It is likely the following tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511 https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051... > I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. > But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.

dgfitz 3y ago
What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance? I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Why would the aggressor be in a position of resistance? Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? Aren’t those two things at odds with each other? Edit: typo
- Kudos 3y ago
  Are you unfamiliar with the oppression Palestinians experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
  - xdennis 3y ago
    18% of Israelis are Muslim. How many Jews are allowed in Gaza?
    - Kudos 3y ago
      Are you trying to suggest that it's the Jews who are oppressed?
      - xdennis 3y ago
        I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say it's an apartheid state when Israel has Muslims with full citizenship, but if Jew crossed into Gaza unarmed he would be slaughtered on the spot. Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.
        hef19898 3y ago
        The better metric would be how many Arabs, including in the occupied territories, are Israelian citizens. By the way, apartheid doesn't depend on citizenship per se.
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        AFAICT, the West Bank could be called "an occupied territory", but Gaza definitely cannot. I don't know why people keep repeating this: Israel pulled out of Gaza 17 years ago and let it govern itself. A place can't be "occupied" when you don't have soldiers there and you're not administering the place.
        hef19898 3y ago
        How much self government do you really have when you are under embargoe by all neighbouring states, are not recognized as sovereign nation and depend dor basix essentials (water, fuel...) on the former occupier? It is an occupation by all measures but name.
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        How is it Israel's fault that they're embargoed by other neighboring states? And what's been keeping all the other states from supplying those basic essentials? Last I heard, they got a lot of humanitarian supplies from many other countries worldwide, even as far away as Japan. AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn't they even try to get Egypt to take Gaza back, and Egypt refused? I'm sorry, this doesn't fit the definition of "occupation" at all.
        hef19898 3y ago
        Gaza is described, by Amnesty International and the Norwegian Refugee Council, as the world largest open air prison. It depends for all life necessities on Israel and has all of two neighbours, Israel and Egypt. The former being also the former occupier which refuses to lift the embargoe and prevents Gazans from participating in normal life in Israel, incl. working there. All Israel did to technically not make it an occupation is to withdraw troops, getting rid of that cost and risk. They did not so get rid of accountability and responsibility. That situation is the perfect breeding ground for extremism. Israel is not at all innocent in the FUBAR that is the middle east and Gaza in particular, regardless of the excuses Israel finds.
    - sharno 3y ago
      Have you read the linked page? > Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".[237] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."
- logicchains 3y ago
  >What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air prison. If twenty years later the people in that part of Ukraine manage to gather weapons and launch a counter-attack on Russia, wouldn't that count as resistance?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense. For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  Well people view israel as the aggressor because they have been pushing palestinians off their land by force (as for the truth of this claim, ive no clue, consult an expert)
- Cenk 3y ago
  It could be considered resistance to the ongoing occupation of Gaza and the war crimes that Israel commits there (according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem etc)?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Gaza isn't occupied, it's besieged. Has been for about 15 years; before that it was occupied (and settled). Before that it was under Egyptian administration, and before that it was under UN administration. Nobody has ever annexed Gaza.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - 543631351726 3y ago
      [dead]
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? I mean, russia did make that claim, in essence that they were resisting nato expansion. In fact i would say its a pretty common thing across many conflicts. The side that starts the conflict usually tries to shift blame (whether legitly or not) to the other side because its bad PR to be seen as the side starting shit. This particular conflict is complex as the sides have basically been in low levels of conflict (and somdtimes not so low) for about a century, however the oct 7 attack by hamas seems like a totally new level of violence and crime against humanity compared to what came before.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The Hamas attack was as despicable as they get. As far as terror attacks go, it is right up there with 9/11. As is Israels reaction.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      In case its not clear, i agree. Actually i think it was much worse than 9/11. If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I guess we can put that on list of all those other crimes that never got prosecuted in Den Hague. Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?
        bawolff 3y ago
        > Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction? Brundi and the Philippines? Maybe i misunderstand your question as i don't know what you are getting at. Israel has never ratified. However Palestine did ratify so the ICC does have juridsiction here.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- shkkmo 3y ago
  The tweet refers to the "coming genocide" which seems to be a reference to Israel's plan to invade more of Palestine. > Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? If the Ukranian army starts entering internationally recognized Russian territory and killing civilians, then if the citizens of that territory were to fight back, that could accurately be called "armed resistance". > I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Israel has been illegally occupying and settling parts of Palestine for a long time. The most recent flare-up was trigger by reprehensible attacks from Hamas, but there is a long history of violence and aggression by both sides and lots of shared responsibility on both sides for the many needless civilian deaths. However I tend to hold Israel more responsible because of two factors: 1) Israel is wealthier and more powerful 2) Israelis consistently kill more Palestinians than vice versa.
Kudos 3y ago
> every act Oof. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but that's just too broad.
mardifoufs 3y ago
It's not like Israel was hiding that it was going for Gaza beforehand anyways. https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-minister-hails-repealing-of-west-bank-disengagement https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...
bawolff 3y ago
In other words, he opposes war except when he agrees with it. Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  Speaking of hawkish persons, you're reducing what Craig terms "genocide" to war.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide. Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocide in the future? Sure it hasn't happened yet but still might because time hasn't ended?
    - ignoramous 3y ago
      May be you're right. I'm no expert. And I'm certainly not Craig to tell you just what their thinking was/is. > Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. Speaking of experts, see this piece by an Isareli historian Raz Segal (who's also a controversial figure, because nothing about this conflict is without controversy): https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      Unlikely? The UN have already issued a warning: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
animuchan 3y ago
[flagged]

dgfitz 3y ago

What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance? I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Why would the aggressor be in a position of resistance? Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? Aren’t those two things at odds with each other? Edit: typo

Kudos 3y ago
Are you unfamiliar with the oppression Palestinians experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
- xdennis 3y ago
  18% of Israelis are Muslim. How many Jews are allowed in Gaza?
  - Kudos 3y ago
    Are you trying to suggest that it's the Jews who are oppressed?
    - xdennis 3y ago
      I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say it's an apartheid state when Israel has Muslims with full citizenship, but if Jew crossed into Gaza unarmed he would be slaughtered on the spot. Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        The better metric would be how many Arabs, including in the occupied territories, are Israelian citizens. By the way, apartheid doesn't depend on citizenship per se.
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        AFAICT, the West Bank could be called "an occupied territory", but Gaza definitely cannot. I don't know why people keep repeating this: Israel pulled out of Gaza 17 years ago and let it govern itself. A place can't be "occupied" when you don't have soldiers there and you're not administering the place.
        hef19898 3y ago
        How much self government do you really have when you are under embargoe by all neighbouring states, are not recognized as sovereign nation and depend dor basix essentials (water, fuel...) on the former occupier? It is an occupation by all measures but name.
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        How is it Israel's fault that they're embargoed by other neighboring states? And what's been keeping all the other states from supplying those basic essentials? Last I heard, they got a lot of humanitarian supplies from many other countries worldwide, even as far away as Japan. AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn't they even try to get Egypt to take Gaza back, and Egypt refused? I'm sorry, this doesn't fit the definition of "occupation" at all.
        hef19898 3y ago
        Gaza is described, by Amnesty International and the Norwegian Refugee Council, as the world largest open air prison. It depends for all life necessities on Israel and has all of two neighbours, Israel and Egypt. The former being also the former occupier which refuses to lift the embargoe and prevents Gazans from participating in normal life in Israel, incl. working there. All Israel did to technically not make it an occupation is to withdraw troops, getting rid of that cost and risk. They did not so get rid of accountability and responsibility. That situation is the perfect breeding ground for extremism. Israel is not at all innocent in the FUBAR that is the middle east and Gaza in particular, regardless of the excuses Israel finds.
  - sharno 3y ago
    Have you read the linked page? > Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".[237] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."
logicchains 3y ago
>What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air prison. If twenty years later the people in that part of Ukraine manage to gather weapons and launch a counter-attack on Russia, wouldn't that count as resistance?
- bawolff 3y ago
  You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense. For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
Well people view israel as the aggressor because they have been pushing palestinians off their land by force (as for the truth of this claim, ive no clue, consult an expert)
Cenk 3y ago
It could be considered resistance to the ongoing occupation of Gaza and the war crimes that Israel commits there (according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem etc)?
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Gaza isn't occupied, it's besieged. Has been for about 15 years; before that it was occupied (and settled). Before that it was under Egyptian administration, and before that it was under UN administration. Nobody has ever annexed Gaza.
- xdennis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - 543631351726 3y ago
    [dead]
bawolff 3y ago
> Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? I mean, russia did make that claim, in essence that they were resisting nato expansion. In fact i would say its a pretty common thing across many conflicts. The side that starts the conflict usually tries to shift blame (whether legitly or not) to the other side because its bad PR to be seen as the side starting shit. This particular conflict is complex as the sides have basically been in low levels of conflict (and somdtimes not so low) for about a century, however the oct 7 attack by hamas seems like a totally new level of violence and crime against humanity compared to what came before.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The Hamas attack was as despicable as they get. As far as terror attacks go, it is right up there with 9/11. As is Israels reaction.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    In case its not clear, i agree. Actually i think it was much worse than 9/11. If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I guess we can put that on list of all those other crimes that never got prosecuted in Den Hague. Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?
      - bawolff 3y ago
        > Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction? Brundi and the Philippines? Maybe i misunderstand your question as i don't know what you are getting at. Israel has never ratified. However Palestine did ratify so the ICC does have juridsiction here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 3y ago
The tweet refers to the "coming genocide" which seems to be a reference to Israel's plan to invade more of Palestine. > Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? If the Ukranian army starts entering internationally recognized Russian territory and killing civilians, then if the citizens of that territory were to fight back, that could accurately be called "armed resistance". > I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Israel has been illegally occupying and settling parts of Palestine for a long time. The most recent flare-up was trigger by reprehensible attacks from Hamas, but there is a long history of violence and aggression by both sides and lots of shared responsibility on both sides for the many needless civilian deaths. However I tend to hold Israel more responsible because of two factors: 1) Israel is wealthier and more powerful 2) Israelis consistently kill more Palestinians than vice versa.

Kudos 3y ago

> every act Oof. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but that's just too broad.

mardifoufs 3y ago

It's not like Israel was hiding that it was going for Gaza beforehand anyways. https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-minister-hails-repealing-of-west-bank-disengagement https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...

bawolff 3y ago

In other words, he opposes war except when he agrees with it. Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.

ignoramous 3y ago
Speaking of hawkish persons, you're reducing what Craig terms "genocide" to war.
- bawolff 3y ago
  He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide. Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocide in the future? Sure it hasn't happened yet but still might because time hasn't ended?
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    May be you're right. I'm no expert. And I'm certainly not Craig to tell you just what their thinking was/is. > Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. Speaking of experts, see this piece by an Isareli historian Raz Segal (who's also a controversial figure, because nothing about this conflict is without controversy): https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    Unlikely? The UN have already issued a warning: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

animuchan 3y ago

[flagged]