15 Comments
User's avatar
Glenda's avatar

Why has this taken so long. Let's do it already!

Expand full comment
Alan Walker's avatar

This dereliction of duty towards basic humanity by Trump, Starmer and Lammy is absolutely disgraceful. I can only imagine that they will retire from their positions with wads of cash given by AIPAC. Their bank balances will be healthy but their consciences will have to take the blow. But Hey! I was forgetting-they don’t have one.

Expand full comment
Nicky's avatar

They forget that this life on earth is not forever and they will be judged at the end of their earthly life.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth Chandler's avatar

That they might possess a conscience ??? Impossible, given their track record . Despicable , all of them

Expand full comment
R Shelli's avatar

Completely agree. Every country vs. US, UK and Israel.

Expand full comment
KO0KO's avatar
8hEdited

In this long interview, not a single word is waste. The following details of the history from 2005 to October 7th are crucial for the analysis and resolution of the conflict. Surprisingly, no academic has yet brought them to the forefront of the debate. It demonstrates that the strength of the argument resides in the detail. It must be widely and urgently disseminated and continued:

Siege to Genocide: Gaza’s history from 2005–2025 | Muhammad Shahada | UNAPOLOGETIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHCT2AHWeE

Expand full comment
Elizabeth Chandler's avatar

Magnificently well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Amongst the worst of nations preferring hollow , vacuous platitudes rather than calling out the Zionist Israeli government for what it is , is the Australian government . So far under the boot of the US and Israel that it is disappearing. Except to be seen as despicably spineless . Two years after the Zionist genocide in Palestine has begun they are finally getting around to recognising Palestine as a state , yet still refuse to condemn the genocide for what it is .

Unforgivable .

Expand full comment
KO0KO's avatar

— No state has an inherent right to exist; states exist de facto. Their existence depends on international de-facto recognition of clearly defined, unchanging borders, which Israel possesses no more than Palestine.

Rather than a nation-state Isreal is a de-facto occupier of two existing nations and one aspiring nation.

— States acquire the right of self-defence only when they achieve existence.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Grover's avatar

Great post. Thank you for reminding people that there’s no such thing as”right” to exist in international law. (Al Jazeera’s program “Center Stage” interviewed Ralph Wilde, International law attorney, on the issue of a state’s right to exist, and other legal issues is excellent) Israel has never accepted their internationally recognized borders, as it has no intention of remaining within them. I agree that Israel is a de facto occupier, rather than a nation state and has not earned the right to self defense. Even were they to be found entitled to a right of self defense, the Geneva Conventions are clear that an occupier does NOT have a Right to Self Defense against those they occupy ON OCCUPIED TERRITORY! If Israel wanted to exercise self defense they should have done so on 10/7/2023 when Hamas and other actors were within Israel (wherever that actually is with no recognized borders). Instead they chose to ignore all warnings prior to that date, including those of their own security guards, and then delayed any significant response for upwards to 6 hours.

Expand full comment
KO0KO's avatar
2hEdited

Thank you, Kathleen. I am not a lawyer, but have an interest in it, enough to work this out from cues emerging in the context of current horrors, e.g., F. Albanese is another lawyer to clarify that states don't have a right to exist. It aligns with philosophy. In phenomenology, what exists is what is perceived (thus recognised as such). Therefore, I am glad to reconfirm and expand on this with your expert view and clear explanation.

To your subsequent point on the exercise of self-defence. I wonder what the legal view is on an act of self-defence that is self-destructive: an interesting paradigm for jurisprudence. Let's revise the facts as they happened on 10/7/2023: it was the Israeli so-called Hannibal directive that killed most Israelis on October 7th, and it continues to slowly kill the hostages —and their families in Israel— under the guise of self-defence.

These facts cannot be stressed enough. It would be very useful if every debate on the urgency of the current conflict and how to end it (such as at the UN) started from this fact.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth blakley's avatar

I love him so much! He’s absolutely right! I pray the Lord makes it come true!!❤️❤️❤️

Expand full comment
Ron Dee's avatar

UN: Useless Non-entity (founded by the Rothschilds to forge a one world government ruled from Greater Israel).

Expand full comment
Aamir Razak's avatar

I wish this was more widely known. What is the point of a United Nations if, in times of desperate need, carnage and senseless, deliberate suffering, they stand by and offer empty words and no action? They did not help the people in Bosnia during the ethnic cleansing in the 1990s and still they do nothing to help the people in Gaza and Palestine as they are being starved and massacred. Shameful in my view

Expand full comment
Antonio Julio's avatar

Agora é o momento de China liderar esta força de intervenção da ONU na Palestina. É a sua obrigação. Porque tem poder para isso. Ou será que só quer fazer negócios. Se não fizer esse apoio efetivo será então a maior deceção da humanidade.

Expand full comment
Derek boothby's avatar

Possible? - Yes. Wise - No. The UN military force needed would then find itself in direct conflict against Israel, a UN member state. That is a confrontation that the UN has always sought to avoid as it would probably lead to an unraveling of the institution.

Expand full comment