Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
-
perhaps it's a reaction to the decades of illegal occupation, and the calculated oppression, brutalisation, dispossession and slaughter of a population, by invaders who are rewarded with carte blanche, money and weapons by western governments
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Like I’ve said a million times, there are a tonne of places where bad stuff is happening. As bad or even worse than in Gaza.
There is actual genocide in Sudan at the moment. Right now.
0 -
It's the conflict with something for everyone, that you can easily shoehorn any existing prejudices into.
1 -
I'm more intrigued why you always seek to minimise it with whataboutery.
0 -
you asked why people are upset, i suggested a reason, now you've changed the topic
q: has our government been supporting the sudan factions for decades with diplomatic cover and arms sales?
a: no, unlike the wilfully blind support for israel
there're always terrible situations, but we're not the world's policeman, on it's own the best the uk can do is stop being an enabler
recorded history shows that tribal/religious/ethnic divisions will continue to be exploited by extremists/nationalists to gain power through violence, the fact is that until the locals stop joining in the carnage, or someone imposes (inevitably temporary) order through greater military force, it won't matter how much hand wringing we do, that won't change
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I genuinely don't get why this conflict over so many others gets everyone so worked up. All I can come up with is that both anti-semitism and islamophobia are very popular and it's a vehicle to get stuck in, whereas most westners won't know who the Fur, Masalit, or Zaghawa are, so don't care about their plight.
It's not whataboutery, it's trying to understand why our politicians waste so much of their time on this shite - it's clearly not a humanitarian issue else they'd pay the same attention to the other sh!t.
Either do it for every conflict or do it for none, or only do it for the national interest. This is none of those.
0 -
We're just not involved to the same degree RC.
I haven't seen any ads from the Sudan tourist board encouraging me to visit. They're not running some huge and blatantly hypocritical PR campaign. They're not tied up in European history in the same way. They are literally further away.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Sudan declared independence from Britain in the 50s. Not even 70 years ago.
Given the civil war there is obviously a "blatant PR campaign" but no-one bothers to listen to it.
Honestly, parliament getting its knickers in a twist over Isarel Gaza is a fucking disgraceful abdication of responsibility for governing this land.
I could get on board with a moral or a national interest argument but it's none of those. It's the epitome of useless virtue signalling at a time where the country is on a steep decline.
What a waste of everyone's time.
0 -
I've had plenty of ads to go work in Saudi...in general, there's very little discussion around Yemen.
0 -
Britain is literally bombing some Yemenese in response to ship attacks and that gets less attention than its stance on Israel Gaza.
0 -
I'd have thought the dispassionate historian in you would have been better than others in positing reasons why Israel/Palestine still looms so large in collective consciousness here.
My own guess would be that it's down to the ever-present consciousness of anti-Semitism (whether accusations are fair or spurious) and the memory of the Holocaust, and the UK's own evolving role in Middle East politics, which has been ongoing in all that time, unlike in Sudan. Oh, and, as far as I know, we don't sell arms in any great quantity to Sudan.
0 -
-
I understand Netanyahu is still unsure which path to take after the confusion over the amendments to the SNP motion this week.
1 -
Judging from that photo, he's not well.
0 -
Quite a storied and respectable career that guy has had - surely the sub editors have thrown him under the bus on that one. Anyone read the article?
0 -
It won't surprise you to learn that the article says nothing of the sort.
"For all their talk of confronting Russian aggression, Ukraine’s faltering military campaign not only serves as an indictment of Europe’s lack of preparedness to address the threat Moscow poses. It will lend Putin encouragement that, as he anticipated when he first decided to invade Ukraine, the West has little appetite for a fight with Russia.
It is essential, therefore, that if a deadly escalation of conflict in Europe is to be avoided, the West redoubles its efforts to provide Kyiv with the weaponry it requires to prevail on the battlefield. Ukraine, after all, is not fighting this war just for its own survival. It is fighting to defend the entire Western alliance. "
Telegraph articles almost never say what the headline does. (Edited - the Braverman one actually is as batshit as the headline.)
0 -
That's more like it.
The problem with the right wingers going absolutely batsh!t is some sensible stuff like deterrence is lost in the noise of the utter liquid shite that comes out of the mouths of the headbangers.
0 -
I edited - the Braverman article is as crazy as the headline.
0 -
No one's going to come out well from this are they?
With the possible exception of Mark Francois.
0 -
I think it's a f*cking disgrace, quite frankly, and I think the lack of consistency in the approach to other ongoing humanitarian crisis shows how performative and vain the whole western discourse is about the conflict.
The "dispassionate historian" would merely point at the British Empire legacy. Since I've brought up Sudan, when do you think Sudan declared independence from the UK? You were probably already alive at that point.
If you really want to go into it, the roots of this current genocide can be found in the various British colonial policies in South Sudan, which ruled on the basis of religious and ethnic segregation, as well as starving it from much needed economic development in an attempt to stop it being islamified.
But hey, no-one can exercise their own prejudices about others in that exercise, so f*ck it.
Pathetic and disgraceful all round.
0 -
A colleague was discussing how a graduate LGBT event they were involved with had refused sponsorship from a company who had sold arms to Israel.
I didn't ask whether they thought Hamas wanted support from the LGBT community. Or why it had previously been ok for the company to sell to countries where homosexuality was illegal, or with worse human rights issues.
Also lots of people seem to be happy to conflate selling arms, with giving arms. I've not noticed that before.
0 -
Yes the LGBT for Palestine stuff is remarkable. Go hang out in Gaza with your rainbow flag and see how long it is before you're beaten up by a local.
From the Wiki:
In February 2016, it was reported that one of the leading commanders of the armed wing of Palestinian militant group Hamas, Mahmoud Ishtiwi, was executed under the charges that he engaged in homosexual activity and theft.[20][21] Scholar Timea Spitka stated that in Gaza, coming out is a "death sentence" because police don't act against queerphobic violence, domestic violence isn't pursued, and civil society organizations, which protect women and children, are reported to be "vulnerable to attack." Spika added, in a related article, that this vulnerability has "been exploited by Israel," noting a connection between the Israeli occupation, lack of security and protection for women and non-heterosexual people, and lack of rule of law.[22][23] In 2019, Haaretz interviewed four gay men and one gay woman living in Gaza, who recounted their experiences: one man recounted his rough treatment by Hamas members, while others said they feared being arrested, outed, then forced into heterosexual marriage by their families. All four said that social media was a "game changer" in meeting other LGBTQ individuals, but some feared catfishing by undercover Hamas or Israeli intelligence agents.[24]
0 -
Simply put, the West is only interested in its own interests, or its allies. Any other view is naive. Correct but naive.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Spell out the interest here over other conflicts, as I can only see vain or performative interest.
0 -
I think the aim of the vote was to give a bit of certainty to the UK in its security council vote. At the moment, the UK doesn't seem capable of voting.
Obviously, if the UK does develop a spine and manage to vote with the rest of the world, it won't change a thing, because of the US.
0 -
What's your solution for Sudan?
0 -
An armed-to-the-teeth UN intervention I think would save a lot of lives. Not sure it would solve it by any stretch, but the numbers of death are so big it would be worth it.
0 -
i suspect that if hamas had offered sponsorship they'd have declined that too
tbh uk's contribution is small vs. the usa's, but successive uk governments have been happy to licence sales to israel, an occupying power that has violated international law for decades, but of course we've done the same for many other loathsome buyers
money trumps morals, especially with the lucrative directorships and consultancy positions made available for retiring ministers etc.
btw it's interesting that hamas has become adept at getting weaponry from israel (i've 'shared' it to be paywall-free)
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Which other conflicts specifically?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
