The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a poorly stated context of self-defense.

But I couldn't find any tweet that openly calls for violence either way. Mostly seems to be reactions and criticism about Israel's ongoing killing of civilians in Gaza, which would hardly count as terrorism (edit: well, at least shouldn't).

> 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.

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.

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?

> 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://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

The article doesn't seem to be using an evidence based approach.

No conclusions should be made about that incident, either way. Other than the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered because of hatred.

“Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada said that their intelligence sources indicate the cause of the explosion was a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from within Gaza, while the PIJ has denied any involvement. Hamas said that Israel carried out an airstrike on the hospital. Most experts speaking in the days after the strike agreed with the Israel Defense Forces' analysis that a misfired Palestinian rocket launched at Israel from within Gaza and captured on video was the likely cause of the explosion.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explos...

I've seen no convincing evidence that shows that Israel did it, the creator and damage size is way too small for any Israeli bomb or missile even airburst does not match the features found at the explosion.

The difference between a pacifist and a hawk is the frequency of such appeals and the definition of its necessity.

I've always been a pacifist, but I struggle to condemn the actions of a populace that has now been subjected to brutal apartheid conditions for several generations.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...

Edit: typo

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?

Gaza is essentially half controlled by Egypt.

For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...

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.

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.

That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it.

> 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.

That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.

I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control.

> That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.

Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.

AIUI it pretty much was; yes the zionist movement existed to a certain extent before WW2, but the overwhelming majority of jewish people living on the territory of Palestine in 1948 had moved there at most a few years before (with a huge increase in those who felt the desire or need to move there as persecution escalated in Europe in the 1930s and ultimately lead to the holocaust).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal...

There's certainly reasons one could doubt the number in absolute terms, there was certainly nothing like a modern census, but i think its more than enough to counter the narrative that there were no jews there right up until just before 1948.

To be clear not saying the jewish population didn't significantly expand in the 40's, it clearly did (at the same time many of those were basically forced from their previous homes, which i don't think fits with the "colonist" metaphor as that usually implies more choice), just that there were always jews in the region.

AIUI colonists usually tend to be at least partly fleeing bad situations at home - occasionally nothing more than a lack of opportunity, but often debts, criminal records and the like.

Australia was literally a penal colony.

(Of course this probably doesn't apply to all colonies, I wonder if those that started as trade depots fare differently ?)

This is the root of your confusion. A bunch of people didn't just "show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land". This bunch of people were steadily migrating and acquiring land legally. The only real "seizure" happened within the context of war caused by their growing, legal presence on the land.

If I am not mistaken, the first colonies in the USA also "legally" acquired land ? (In the sense that the natives agreed to their presence.)

Really? My grandfather talked about having to intercept or shoot the boatloads that were arriving illegally, and not being able to catch them all, and a quick look into the history seems to back that up.

There's absolutely no evidence this happened.

There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.

Bombs are brutal.

I am reminded of the colonization of the USA : some of the Native American tribes were infamous for their atrocities (if I am not mistaken, ramped up against the colonists compared to what they usually did in war ?).

Of course in the long term the Resistance committing atrocities only hurts their own cause : it gives a justification for the Empire to commit genocide.

We will see whether Israel will take the opportunity, or will only leave genocide as a publicly made promise - note also that under the current situation, genocide is going to happen by sheer neglect if a significant fraction of the needed humanitarian aid is not let in.

It's like saying that Cherokee would be colonizers if they moved to North Carolina, which is their original homeland before they were forced to move to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears).

Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers.

It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last being the British.

Most of today's Israelis are from Muslim countries, some are from Europe, and the rest never left. But many of Arabs of the land (which have adopted the name Palestinians after the province, not the people) are from neighboring countries.

The sad thing is, there is now, realistically, no way out of the current situation that involves reconciliation - that chance was missed in the last century. The animosity is now likely unsurmountable, the military disparity is entrenched for good, and a sustainable resolution can only involve the complete purge of Gaza and West Bank. Israeli citizens have chosen to belong to another nationalistic ethnostate, right when the Western mainstream started to move towards more modern and inclusive models of statehood - ironically, on the example of Israel's best ally. As such, they are busy repeating all the sins such states have been guilty of during less enlightened ages.

This is also a handwave.

Minor quibble over "theological" - I think "tribal" would fit better. Humans are a funny animal.

The chance for peace was extremely slim. It's been an existential conflict since before 1948, and Camp David's alternative required that the doves on both sides be stronger than the hawks. Unfortunately, there's an asymmetry there.

> This is also a handwave.

No, that's a statement of fact. It's been almost 80 years since the founding of Israel, its overall historical trajectory is not really in question anymore. Election after election, these choices have been made for three generations; the ideological scenario is entrenched for good. It's sad but it is what it is.

> Minor quibble over "theological" - I think "tribal" would fit better.

I could agree there, but it's a fine line. There is a religious symbol on the very flag.

The problem is the countries that are empires : where non-national ethnicities are subjects. This includes Israel because of its control of Cisjordania and, yes, also the USA (though to be fair, there's hardly anything left of the Native Americans, and as you say, they get the excuse of immaturity).

Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop.

What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.

Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.

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.

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.

Before the attack, Israel was issuing work permits to Gazans to let them work and earn badly-needed money in Israel; so much for that.

I can see why Israel doesn't want Gazans participating in normal life there: they keep shooting rockets at them. And after the latest atrocity, they'll probably never entertain the idea of good relations with them.

Is Korea an "apartheid state" because North and South Korea refuse to let each other's citizens "participate in normal life" on the other side of the DMZ?

>Israel is not at all innocent in the FUBAR that is the middle east and Gaza in particular

It seems like the reverse to me: their actions in the West Bank continue to be wrong and cause problems (illegal settlements). But I don't see how they've done anything wrong in Gaza in 17 years: they simply don't want that group of people in their country, and they have that right.

Also, why is it that people like you never criticize Egypt for not taking in the Gazans? There's really nothing stopping Egypt from annexing Gaza.

a) they never occupied Gaza to begin with

b) they have yet to bomb Gaza

Egypt gets the same criticism when it comes to the embargoe so.

But you know who is stopping Egypt from annexing (interesting choice of words, by the way) Gaza? Israel. And you actually have not the slightest idea what apartheid is and how it works.

b) Gaza doesn't shoot rockets into Egypt regularly, so of course they don't bomb them

c) I've never seen it

d) Last I heard, Israel tried to get Egypt to take Gaza back. How is Israel preventing Egypt from taking them?

I do know what apartheid is: it's what happened in South Africa, when two groups of people lived in the very same place (i.e., in the same towns and cities) and were treated differently by the state. It's just like how Black people were treated in the US during the Jim Crow era. What's happening with Gaza is nothing like this.

>> The United Nations, International Committee of the Red Cross, and many human rights organization however continue to consider the occupying power as Israel controls Gaza's borders, with the exception of the Egyptian border, airspace and access to the sea and exercises what they consider to be effective military control over the territory.[21][22][23]

>> In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[181] Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi, Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy, John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, and Iain Scobbie) maintain that Israel's extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.[182][183] In spite of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Hamas government in Gaza considers Gaza as occupied territory.[184]

>> Several rights groups have characterized the situation in Gaza as an "open-air prison", including the United Nations,[193] Human Rights Watch,[194] and the Norwegian Refugee Council.[195] This characterization was often cited by a number of human rights activists, politicians, and media news outlets reporting on the Gaza-Israel conflict and the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict.[196][197][198][199][200][201] Former British Prime Minister David Cameron,[202] US Senator Bernie Sanders,[203] former Israeli diplomat Gideon Levy,[204] and Israeli historian Ilan Pappe have endorsed this characterization as well.[205]

>> Human Rights Watch issued a report on the situation in the Gaza Strip, which it called an "open-air prison" due to the blockade and held Israel responsible as the occupying power, and to a lesser degree Egypt, which has restricted movement of Palestinians through its border.[194]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

Seems we have a choice now, either we believe all the entities having prepared extensive reports (all cited in the wikipedia article) or we believe Israelian PR and legalese on the status of Gaza according to international law (which doesn't change the an iota when it comes to the humanitarian situation there). Your choice.

I am not saying Hamas actions are justified. And I am not saying Israel shouldn't get support. Ehat I am saying is, that we cannot ignore the humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people that is at the core of the conflict. And whatever support the West can give should aim at renewed, and serious, peace talks. That means that Israel has to give up something, too. After all, Israel has the right to exist as a state the same way Palestinians have the right to live freely, un-oppressed and peacefully.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

> The Pretoria government established ten Bantustans in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating autonomous nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups. Under the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, the government stripped black South Africans of their South African citizenship, depriving them of their few remaining political and civil rights in South Africa, and declared them to be citizens of these homelands.[3]

The Jim Crow era was very different from apartheid. There was redlining and segregation, but African Americans weren't stripped of citizenship and marshaled into enclaves the way South Africa did with the Bantustans and their Citizenship Act. Apartheid means "kept apart," South Africa, like Israel, sequestered its undesirables into enclaves.

Apartheid was different, it combined a version of the forced relocation and reservation system that the US used for Native Americans (only with the pretense -- with very little substance, but merely as an excuse for the central government to disclaim responsibility -- that the reservations ("bantustans") were independent states rather than territories of subordinate sovereigns) with the racial discrimination in services and facilities within the rest of the country proper that Black Americans faced in the Jim Crow era.

> Egypt used to own Gaza

Egypt occupied Gaza, the same as Israel later did, but did not claim it, establishing a separate protectorate (it was merged into the UAR with Egypt and Syria, and from which Syria later rebelled, but even then it was considered distinct from Egypt, and it was formally transferred to the authority of the PLO (though practical governance was exercised by Egypt) after 1964.

> Last I heard, Israel tried to get Egypt to take Gaza back.

Egypt can't take it back, because Egypt never claimed it.

The UAR can't take it back, because the UAR has been disbanded.

Egypt could reoccupy it, but why would they want to? (Especially given that the people there don't want Egypt to do so, and have been rather...prickly...about occupations imposed on them.)

I have worked closely with young educated Gazans on projects that outsourced to them. They claimed that they would love to get access to the Egyptian labor market, and get an Egyptian passport so that they could have a hope of working in other markets internationally. They’d leave Gaza for better opportunities elsewhere in a heartbeat. Yes, of course some other Gazans wouldn’t want to leave at all, and Hamas wouldn’t permit Egypt authority over the area. But Egypt’s refusal to open the borders to Gazans is about a series of security concerns of its own, and not so much about universal Gazan resistance to the idea.

Egypt's refusal to assist Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza via forced deportation is a different issue than the one raised upthread about Egypt’s earlier refusal reoccupy Gaza.

Because, yes, the closures prior to the crisis, between the openings, have been due to Egyptian security concerns (mostly breakdowns of various agreements between Egypt, Hamas, PIJ, and the Palestinian Authority on border management), COVID-19, and various other issues.

Between that and the blockade of their coast, they're 100% sealed off from any trade, fishing or immigration that Israel doesn't choose to allow.

Maybe "occupation" isn't the right word but they don't get to act like an independent state.

> 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."

If we forget the previous decades, land taken with force, occupation, appartheid, control, and thousands of dead and imprisoned on the other side, plus hundreds of thousands drive off their own land, then yes.

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.

If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.

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.

Nobody has ever annexed Gaza.

> 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.

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

I have negative levels of sympathy for this terrible human being. When you openly support HAMAS, you get treated like a HAMAS member you are.

Hamas is on the proscribed organisation list.

Here's the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

And the list of proscribed organisations and a more accessible explanation of the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.

This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)

Every law in the UK is selectively enforced. Except maybe laws regarding speeding if they have evidence.

The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them.

If the Police don't like you, they just pick something vaguely relevant which you have probably broken and hassle you for it.

Sounds like India learnt a thing or two from the British, here.

* Atomwaffen Division (AWD)

* Feuerkrieg Division (FKD)

* Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)

* National Action

* The Base

Out of all these, I’d only heard of National Action.

It’s not clear (to me) that all the proscribed groups are actually active in the UK though, with the Internet, I guess they can be recruiting people to their cause.

I also wasn’t too surprised to see that the most recent addition to the list is the Wagner Group (proscribed in September 2023).

On the other hand, I was surprised to see that Basque separatists, ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) are still listed – despite the fact that they renounced the armed struggle over a decade ago and dissolved their organisation five years ago.

Curiously, their “List of proscribed groups linked to Northern Ireland related terrorism” is even more out-of-date. Since the second-wave of feminism, Cumann na mBan is essentially an historical relic. Some of the organisations (e.g. Saor Éire) haven’t been active since the 70s. The IPLO were (violently) eliminated in the early 90s. The Irish Republican Army is listed but there’s no distinction made between the multiple different groups that refer to themselves as the “Irish Republican Army”; the largest of these (by far), the Provisional IRA abandoned the armed struggle two decades ago and committed themselves to constitutional means of achieving their political aims (as per the 1998 Belfast Agreement aka the Good Friday Agreement) – though splinter IRAs remain opposed to the Peace Process.

> The Base is a predominantly US based militant white supremacist group, formed in 2018. It draws influence from a collection of essays by prominent National Socialist, James Mason, which advocate the use of violence to initiate the collapse of modern society through a ‘race war’ and the subsequent creation of a white ethno-state. This ideology is known as ‘accelerationism’.

Al Qa’ida (AQ) are listed separately:

> Inspired and led by Usama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.

I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.

As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That's what they were always intended to do. The whole "terrorist" thing was a way of getting popular support for them, just like the popular fears of child abuse have been used to pass yet more police state surveillance laws.

That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right? Do random UK civil servants really abuse the system to this extent for personal or political gain?

Whole departments are set up to work on internal "enemies of the state". Pressure from foreign governments (cough) also points to their undesirables. People above a certain station can trivially tell what is the establishment political winds, short and long term, and which are the "annoying" people that go against them. They also know that furthering the cause against them looks good to their superiors. They can and do build organizational "vendettas" and keep tabs, harass, prosecute them, for years, or even decade.

This goes all the way. Judges and prosecutors making decisions on such cases know who can help their career and what can hurt it, and so on. No explicit coordination needed, though there's a lot of that too - e.g. some established enterpreneur calling their favorite politician and asking them to "do something about that person", special interest groups created ad hoc, and so on. Check a comment by someone called Scott in TFA.

>That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right?

Oh, sweet summer child.

That's roughly it.

The British Establishment (leaders of the main parties, intelligence officials, senior judges, senior police) wanted to make an example of him, because of his persistent exposure of their arbitary persecution of Assange. He was charged with contempt of court, for "jigsaw identification" of a witness in another case, that of Alex Salmond. That charge was prosecuted before a single judge, who was very much a member of "The Establishment", and he got 6 months in the slammer.

It's still not clear which remarks he made on his blog that contributed to jigsaw identification. Maybe it was a commenter on his blog that made the troublesome remark. But apparently other, more-mainstream journalists had been much more explicit, and most of the Scottish political class knew who the witness was from those sources, not from Craig's blog.

Basically, he was fitted-up for loudly espousing Scottish independence.

Worth mentioning a couple of details about that case.

Alex Salmond was the leader of the Scottish independentist party.

Arrested in 2019 with the accusation of 14 instances of sexual abuses from 8 anonymous women.

The subsequent trial cleared him of all charges.

Also, probably, the reason that the SNP leadership are now pushing for jury-less trials for sexual abuse cases.

If true, it's a staggeringly cynical abuse of the Me Too movement, feminism and the wave of popular support for sexual abuse victims.

I don't know the details, but when 8 separate individuals accuse you, all without cause, it's hard to believe it's a coincidence.

I don't mean to go off-topic, but the last few years have shown that this is how power and influence really works in our world. There is no other way to explain (for example) why no clients of Jeff Epstein's brothels have as yet been named and prosecuted. Conveniently, a few have identified themselves through their actions. But they are all free men still, with no signs of any pending comeuppance, or really even an investigation into their involvement.

Probably no-one sat down and designed the system to work like this. But it works well for everyone involved, so...

I could not find any.

Craig Murray - @CraigMurrayOrg To be entirely plain. 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. If that is a crime, send me back to jail. 7:24 PM · Oct 14, 2023 · 167.9K Views

according to https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

So the question is whether "I will support Hammas" constitutes "inviting support". That's not clear-cut to me. Probably be able to get him on section 12 though, "reckless" is a movable feast.

Humanity shouldn't wait for another holocaust. These people should be investigated immediately.

> To be entirely plain.

> 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.

> If that is a crime, send me back to jail.

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...

I think he's clearly very angry and upset about the violence inflicted upon Gaza population and it's difficult to keep heads clear and calm.

But let's not jump from "armed resistance" to "another holocaust".

> Humanity shouldn't wait for another holocaust.

Agreed. An international coalition must militarily intervene to repeal rules such as Military Order 158 (blocking construction of water infrastructure), rebuild important infrastructure (like the airport blown up by israel), restore critical life services like hospitals (which have been bombed 62 times), stop the murder of civilians, destroy checkpoints, walls, sniper nests and other infrastructure imprisoning the people who have lived here for millenia. The murder, displacement, apartheid, and genocide that has occurred for the past 70 years must be stopped before the terrorist ethnostate finally fills the last graves of those who did not flee their homes.

The people responsible for these atrocities -which stand alongside My Lai, the Rouge, Rwanda, the Kulaks, etc- must be held to an international trial, and should never see a life of freedom ever again. God forbid that the murder should escalate to the true eradication of the Gaza strip- if those millions were exterminated, there would truly be no event that could even be compared except for the Holocaust.

> blocking construction of water infrastructure

Does the UK have any water pipelines for France? Israelis are being generous with the Palestinians and when they stop because of terrorism they're accused of "holocaust" by people like you. Disgusting.

> rebuild important infrastructure (like the airport blown up by Israel)

It was destroyed because it was used to attack Israel. They have the right to defend themselves.

> restore critical life services like hospitals

Everybody knows that Hamas hides in hospitals. Even Wikipedia admits it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital .

The only solution for this is for Israel to annex Hamas. Abandoning it in 2005 was a mistake. Instead of becoming Singapore they became a haven for terrorism.

Murray is one of the most obnoxious, most vocal anti-Zionists on the planet. He has been doing it for-fucking-ever. You have no idea what you're talking about.

> Does the UK have any water pipelines for France?

Complete non-sequitur. I said Military Order 158: since 1967 (56 years) the Israeli military has used force to prevent Palestinians from building water supplies in their own country.

Israel does not provide water out of generosity. They do it so they can shoot anyone who tries to supply water. It's despicable to call this generosity.

> It was destroyed because it was used to attack Israel.

This is an outright lie. Israel closed the airport was during Intifada and for two years nobody was allowed to use it until it was finally bombed.

> Everybody knows that Hamas hides in hospitals.

There are soldiers in hospitals during any war, to prevent the hospitals from being taken over or destroyed, and because soldiers tend to be shot at. Even Russia does not do this to hospitals.

It's also illegal to kill combat medics. They are ACTUAL MEMBERS OF HAMAS; it's still wrong and illegal to kill them. Your mind is so warped that you just do not care.

> The only solution for this is for Israel to annex Hamas.

Israel has made it clear it will not end this peacefully, so yes they should give citizenship and equal rights to all Palestinians and end apartheid.

No, it's not, because he's clearly being investigated for supporting Hamas' actions (which classified as a terrorist organization by the UK).

If the government seriously thinks he's capable of following through on violent acts because he wrote a Tweet saying "I support Hamas", I suspect the government is badly mismanaging its anti-terrorism resources. If the government doesn't think he's going to follow up that Tweet with action and is "merely doing it because the law says they can", that's pretty much the definition of harassment.

Whether or not that’s enough to search him is another debate, but that’s what their thought process was when they decided to detain him.

If they think that then why just him and not the thousands of other people tweeting similar things?

The thought process is evidently "oh, it's that bloody git again, have we got anything we can pin him for this time?"; if you don't see that it's you who's being naive. (I'm agnostic about whether it's specifically about Scottish independence, the Assange case, or something else; one way or another he's a thorn in the side of the powerful, and that's why the book is being thrown at him)

Just read the history of his recent legal hassles, which are a farcical misuse of legislation intended for other purposes. He went to jail for (basically) pointing out all the flaws in the prosecution's case against Alex Salmond.

As the old joke goes; It's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you ;)

say what now? is there any proof he supports those terrorists? in which case, it's pretty clear why he was detained.

edit: found it: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...

yup, terrorism charges incoming. from the same guy that did this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/11/former-ambas...

His own comments are about desperate measures when carpet bombed.

That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.

Every single human being alive has the capacity to manifest the totalitarian-authoritarian personality. We are not immune to it as individuals - our only safety from this viral meme is social. It is only when we have a social order that provides more motivation to eschew the totalitarian-authoritarian personality, at an individual level, that we are actually free of it. The irony is, this personality also arises when an individuals' own personality is challenged by society.

where did i write that? he'll have a fair trial according to the law. he can then convince the judge he doesn't actually support a terrorist organisation (as it's illegal to do that in the UK).

Yes, according to the law, his trial will be fair. The law doesn't around admitting it isn't fair.

But what do you know, I looked under the robe and wig of the law, and would you believe it was just a person! An ugly, naked, shameless person at that.

In reality, there will be no fairness if smirking people like you get your way.

you did what now?

I am not sure I want to give the government the power to prosecute even such disgusting people, because I can't trust the government with such powers. But pretending like he is completely uninvolved and it's just random out of the blue thing when he specifically endorsed terrorists is bullshit.

I don't think there's any PM who wants to be the PM who allowed the UK to break up.

Luckily for them, as Mr Murray's blog details, the SNP is very comfortable being Westminster MPs and aren't that interested in actually doing anything about independence.

if anything the UK gov would want him freely associating with the SNP

not locked up where he's prevented from embarrassing them

Murray is also a crank and conspiracy theorist, who has been a vociferous supporter of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian regime.

Saying this is about Scottish independence is hilarious.

And in terms of who he has upset, he has lots of recent run-ins with the SNP in Scotland. He is currently appealing a sentence he got for "jigsaw-identifying" the woman/women that accused Alex Salmond (previous head of SNP) of rape/sexual assault, on the basis that he believed that Alex Salmond was falsely accused on the basis of some SNP in-fighting.

Outside of what Craig is alleging, SNP the party seems to see themselves as synonymous with the Scottish government and several senior legal positions seem to be in their gift with constitutional implications.