What's that British Press, Nothing To Say, Nothing At All?

Thanks filghy2 for your well considered response. I wonder why it is that Israel has been able to annex territory in Syria contrary to international law, and nobody does anything about it, or, told they might rename it 'Trump Heights' encouraged the 45th (Fake) President to endorse the move. I accept there is controversy in the language used, did Israel annexe the whole of the Sinai Peninsula after the 1956 Suez War -returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Peace Treaty- or is there in this and other cases a difference between 'Occupation' and 'Annexation'. And, just as Russia has sent assassins abroad to kill Putin's enemies, for example in the UK, so Israel has sent assassins to Iran, Syria and the Gulf, in some cases claiming to have murdered terrorists without ever presenting evidence to prove it that would hold up in Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

What, you think im happy about all this? As you said, and i agreed, Putin's just another oligarch.
But you poke a bear....

---

I accept your sentiments on the war, but not the 'poke a bear' bit. Surely the root of this conflict lies in the failures that accumulated throughout the period of Soviet history. One of Gorbachev's key aims was to re-structure Russian industry, because by 1985 it was on the point of collapse-outdated machinery, outdated working practices, a central planning system that was farcical in its mistakes that cost millions, in addition to the excessive needs of the Defence industry at a time when it was failing on a daily basis in Afghanistan.

Gorbachev's loss to Yeltsin took place before any of the reforms took effect, though they might not have worked anyway in a system in which so many people stood to lose their salaries and their perks. So much of the reform of Russian industry and the wider economy was stimulated by foreign capital, and as you know Putin as well as the Oligarchs took full advantage of this, and it was only once their treasures had been consolidated that Putin decided to launch a Perestroika of his own.

It may be psychological, that Putin felt outsiders treated Russia as a gold mine to be plundered at will with the connivance of the Oligarchs, even when he approved of the partnerships that were worth billions. Maybe he felt he should be treated on the World's Stage as one of its Most Important People, with reverence and a respect he felt was lacking. And maybe he eyed the Ukraine as a lucrative asset that bordered the NATO alliance and could not allow it to become independent, at a time when the State was riven with incompetent Govt and corruption on a staggering scale. And thus when Ukraine began to take a different path toward a more democratic and accountable form of govt with less corruption, Putin saw a weak partner becoming stronger with the potential to lose influence there.

Whatever the reasons, Putin has illustrated the failures of dictatorship and violence, and it is no surprise that he has found allies among other dictators, such as Lukashenko, or the equally murderous Mohammed bin Salman, currently waging his own war of resentment with Biden while hammering the Yemen into dust. But, how does one get out of these holes? I think the dictators have always bargained that the more they act, the greater the response must be to deter them, and thus we are left with the same question -more war, or negotiation?

And to bring this back to the OP, when has Corbyn demonstrated any understanding of the issues embedded in Ukraine-Russia relations? He wants the West to stop arming Ukraine, but doesn't this amount to saying Russia should then be free to do what it likes, as if the ruins of Mariupol and Kharkhiv are not a testament to Putin's wider intentions -obey me or die? A life-long Marxist endorsing dictatorship, but not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The man is deluded, and an embarrassment.

Underlying all this is resentment, so powerful an emotion, so addictive to its victims who heap rage and blame on others, who seek to expunge their resentment through violence as if it were a healing process. And a resentment that produces only death, injury and despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I accept there is controversy in the language used, did Israel annexe the whole of the Sinai Peninsula after the 1956 Suez War -returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Peace Treaty- or is there in this and other cases a difference between 'Occupation' and 'Annexation'. And, just as Russia has sent assassins abroad to kill Putin's enemies, for example in the UK, so Israel has sent assassins to Iran, Syria and the Gulf, in some cases claiming to have murdered terrorists without ever presenting evidence to prove it that would hold up in Court.

---

I'll take the next one to the Russia thread because it's a better fit with that topic. I've heard a lot about the double standard with respect to Israel and I agree in part and disagree in part.

Obviously, we can't have countries doing what Israel does and assassinating terrorists and scientists (who are by any standard civilians) in other countries without due process but the people Russia is assassinating are people who jeopardize Putin's autocratic rule. He has murdered journalists who are critical of him, he has murdered dissidents critical of him, and everyone who has run against him has reason to fear being killed from Navalny to Kasparov. This would be akin to Netanyahu or Lapid having Ha'aretz journalists poisoned or thrown out of windows. Or ordering a hit on Livny or Benny Gantz. There was an international uproar when Israel assassinated Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai, as there should have been. But I think there is a key difference between state interests being defended in violation of international law and authoritarian interests, the latter being more dangerous and never having a justification.

There's no defense of the occupation but I will point out that a lot of people on the left do have trouble distinguishing between things taking place in the West Bank and those in Israel. There will be a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv and I will see a decent proportion of lefties defend it (in addition to celebrating the first covid deaths in Israel in fairly large numbers).

If Ukraine sent suicide bombers (or whatever form of guerilla fighter you want) into Moscow, do you think anyone would defend it? I think all of this is to highlight that people will say Israel faces no threat by pointing to the asymmetry of the forces, but never by saying nobody really wants to enter Israel and kill Israelis. Did Russia face any kind of physical or territorial threat that wasn't simply based on made-up claims that have no force under international law (much like Israel's claims to the West Bank etc). In my view, they could not have faced less of a threat.

I'd like to hear more about the poke the bear part and I do think this is related to the thread because I think it's why Corbyn's faction has been distrusted and out of step with the center left. I don't Putin has been provoked in the least. He's killed citizens who dare criticize him in other countries, he's tampered with elections in very obvious ways (not through lobbying efforts but cyber attacks and fraud), he's committed war crimes in Chechnya and Syria, and faced what? Diminishing prestige because his country's economy has suffered from rampant corruption, his oligarchs have raided their former national industries and enriched themselves at the expense of Russian citizens. These are the consequences of running his country like a mafia regime.

But who encouraged him to engage in all-out war against Ukrainians, killing tens of thousands of civilians, setting up torture chambers in Bucha along with the evidence of hundreds of deaths by summary execution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

killing tens of thousands of civilians,

---

correction: UN estimate is 6221 killed, 9371 injured. Ukrainian estimate is 7000-29,125 civilians killed. Probably somewhere between UN estimate and high end but "tens of thousands" was not accurate or at least misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'll take the next one to the Russia thread because it's a better fit with that topic. I've heard a lot about the double standard with respect to Israel and I agree in part and disagree in part.

---

I understand the points you are making, and as a comparative excercise yes there are limits to comparing Russian behaviour in Ukraine to Israel in the Palestinian territories. Unfortunately for you, the scale may be different, and the loss of life more severe now in Ukraine, but the basic problem of one group of people taking over the land of another, is there for all to see.

Radical Settlers on the West Bank have been building illegal settlements since Gush Emunim got in on the act in 1974; Settlers plough up orchards and olive grows Palestinians have farmed for generations, and react with extreme violence to anyone who dares challenge them -most often backed up by the IDF and the Courts, should a Palestinian ever get there with a legitimate claim.

By contrast the restrictions on Palestinian rights to construction, even renovation across the West Bank and particularly in the Old City are so complex virtually none takes place, leading to decay and dilapidation. You will already be aware of the posts I have submitted on the attempt to absorb Sheikh Jarrah into Israel through illegal purchases, while the demolition of housing continues, as does the illegal siege of the Gaza District about which 'the International Commnity' has done precisely nothing. Palestinians have expressed sympathy for the Ukraine, but as with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait which led to an immediate response from the US and the formation of a 'Coalition of the Willing', the response to Israel's annexation of the Jabal Jawlan alone has demonstrated the indifference that breeds resentment among many Palestinians.

The cynical attitude to violence across the region is deplorable, we experienced it here during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland, but I think after 9/11 attitudes began to change though there is no shortage of idiots on Social Media and 'Too Old to Change' Trots in the Labour Party to keep the river of resentment flowing, leading nowhere as it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I understand the points you are making, and as a comparative excercise yes there are limits to comparing Russian behaviour in Ukraine to Israel in the Palestinian territories. Unfortunately for you, the scale may be different, and the loss of life more severe now in Ukraine, but the basic problem of one group of people taking over the land of another, is there for all to see.

---

This part I agree with you about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'd like to hear more about the poke the bear part and I do think this is related to the thread because I think it's why Corbyn's faction has been distrusted and out of step with the center left. I don't Putin has been provoked in the least.

---

I think the claimed provocation is the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, despite assurances apparently given to Gorbachev in 1990. The are obvious problems in using this to excuse Russia's action.

1. NATO had not expanded into Ukraine. Although they had expressed a wish to join, there was no indication this was going to happen any time soon.
2. Self-defence hardly justifies attempting to obliterate another country, deliberate targeting of civilians, etc.
3. Russian aggression has obviously been counter-productive, given previously-neutral countries (Sweden and Finland) have now asked to join NATO and Ukraine has also now formally applied.
4. The argument implies that Russia's neighbours have no right to choose their own destiny. They can't choose to be part of the West just because Russian leaders are paranoid.
5. The self-defence argument ignores Putin's rhetoric about restoring the Russian empire and Ukraine not being a real country, as well as previous Russian aggression in Crimea and Georgia.

I know the anti-Western leftists will say that the US has also interfered in neighbouring countries against leftist governments, but I don't think they've done anything that compares with Russia's behaviour in Ukraine.

To the above I would add that Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons, something Russia has taken advantage of.

And as I am also guilty of it, I think this thread has strayed far from the OP Jericho offered which concerned the internal management of the Labour Party. I guess it just doesn't interest most people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This part I agree with you about.

---

My point being, in case it was missed, that whatever international comparisons one makes, there is a local context in which to analyse and understand relations between Palestinians and Israelis, and that this is the one that matters most, though as I pointed out above it is not relevant to the theme of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And as I am also guilty of it, I think this thread has strayed far from the OP Jericho offered which concerned the internal management of the Labour Party. I guess it just doesn't interest most people here.

---

The reason for the general lack of interest in these allegations seems pretty clear: Corbyn had his chance in 2019 and was rejected decisively by the voters. Corbyn supporters want to blame media bias and internal undermining, but those factors were also present in 2017 so they can't explain why the Labour vote went so far backwards in 2019. It seems that he benefited from a protest vote in 2017, when few expected him to win, but the more voters thought about him as PM the more concerns they had.

Most of the Labour Party has no interest in raking over old coals when they are strongly favoured to win the next election. The Tories have no interest in attacking then for being unfair to Corbyn and his supporters. The general public has little interest in internal party matters unless it affects how the country in governed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The reason for the general lack of interest in these allegations seems pretty clear: Corbyn had his chance in 2019 and was rejected decisively by the voters. Corbyn supporters want to blame media bias and internal undermining, but those factors were also present in 2017 so they can't explain why the Labour vote went so far backwards in 2019. It seems that he benefited from a protest vote in 2017, when few expected him to win, but the more voters thought about him as PM the more concerns they had.

Most of the Labour Party has no interest in raking over old coals when they are strongly favoured to win the next election. The Tories have no interest in attacking then for being unfair to Corbyn and his supporters. The general public has little interest in internal party matters unless it affects how the country in governed.

---

An excellent post and summary, bar one factor. This is the difficulty Labour will have of winning an election as the largest party in the Commons. To do this, it either needs to take seats from the Conservatives in England, or hope those seats are taken by the Liberal Democrats, which I think is the more likely result. But it also needs to claw back seats in Scotland, and although this has looked improbable in recent years, one wonders how solid the SNP vote is, but without at least 10 seats in Scotland, I am not sure that the Labour Party in England can win enough for an outright majority. And, right now, the assumption is that the Conservatives are going to get hammered, and while Jeremy Hunt might be able to calm the markets, their volatility is not the bigger issue, which is the rise in interest rates, the cost of living and whatever energy problems we face this winter.

At the moment, then, I think a Hung Parliament is the most likely result, as in 2010, with Labour having to do a deal with the Liberal Democrats, given the SNP and Labour keep telling us they won't co-operate with each other, not least if the SNP makes an Independence Referendum the only factor bringing it into coalition.