Thursday 18 January 2024

Hitting The Houthis.

Action Stations: The New Zealand Left has conflated the ten UN members condemning Houthi attacks on vessels transiting the Red Sea with the six states involved in the air and naval attacks on Houthi military targets. Veteran leftist Robert Reid, like most New Zealanders, knows full well that the RNZAF possesses no aircraft even remotely capable of participating in attacks of the sort launched by American and British forces. 

“SECOND NIGHT of NZ’s coalition bombing of Yemen!” This hair-raising statement, from veteran leftist Robert Reid, was followed by an even more jaw-dropping claim: “So NZ is at war without any debate, mandate, cabinet or parliamentary resolution and while its government is still on holiday!!”

While it is certainly the case that the New Zealand Left is currently in an excitable frame of mind, Reid’s posting on “X”, has taken that excitability to a whole new level.

To describe the countries involved in the air and naval strikes against the Houthi regime in Yemen as “New Zealand’s coalition” is merely the most egregious of the errors contained in Reid’s posting.

According to the statement released by the White House on 11 January, the strikes were launched at the initiative of the USA and the United Kingdom:

In response to continued illegal, dangerous, and destabilising Houthi attacks against vessels, including commercial shipping, transiting the Red Sea, the armed forces of the United States and United Kingdom, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, consistent with the UN Charter, against a number of targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

Clearly, Reid has mistaken the ten UN members condemning Houthi attacks on vessels transiting the Red Sea with the six states involved in the air and naval attacks on Houthi military targets. Reid, like most New Zealanders, knows that the RNZAF possesses no aircraft even remotely capable of participating in attacks of the sort launched by American and British forces. Nor does New Zealand currently possess the necessary hardware and personnel to participate effectively in the US-led “Operation Prosperity Guardian”.

So, to be clear, New Zealand has not placed itself at the head of any military and/or diplomatic coalition. Nor has it participated in any military strikes against targets located in Houthi-controlled Yemini territory. The nation is not, therefore, at war with anyone. Hence the non-existence of any “cabinet or parliamentary resolution” authorising New Zealand’s participation in the escalating conflict.

Ever since he was a teenager, back in the 1970s, Reid has been involved in anti-militarism activism. A person of his vast experience knows full well that this country played no part in the US/UK airstrikes. Even assuming it wanted to, New Zealand couldn’t participate. Why? Because it is saddled with a defence force that is currently incapable of participating in anything more rigorous than disaster relief at home and, if it’s lucky, the South Pacific. Reid must also know that New Zealand’s adherence to the aims and objectives of Operation Prosperity Guardian is largely a symbolic gesture of support from the Coalition Government to its Five Eyes partners.

So, why the loud alarums and inflammatory claims from a man whose powers of political analysis were, for years, celebrated across the New Zealand Left? What is driving old lefties like Reid into the arms of an army of fanatical Shia fighters for whom the destruction of the “Great Satan”, America, and the utter elimination of the “Zionist Entity”, Israel, are goals for which they are only too willing to martyr themselves? Reid and his left-wing comrades used to be aggressively secular revolutionaries who dismissed religion as the “opium of the people”. What happened?

In a nutshell, the enemy of their Twentieth Century ideological mentors – some in Moscow, others in Beijing – became the Western Left’s enemy also. They may not have viewed the USA as the “Great Satan”, but they certainly saw it as the planet’s foremost imperialist power, as well as the world’s most aggressive promoter of globalised free-market capitalism. And, if the USA constituted the world’s greatest evil, then simple political logic dictated that the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, and all the other dubious propositions of the “Third World” and “Global South” must be “lesser evils”. Anti-Americanism became a left-wing reflex – as strong today as it ever was.

Indisputably, the Americans made it easy for them. What was morally arguable in Korea swiftly became indefensible in Vietnam. And then there were the dictators Uncle Sam kept in power: the Shah of Iran, the Somoza family, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, the list is as long as the historical record of those US-supported authoritarian regimes is bloody.

It never appeared to register with Western leftists, however, that they were able to condemn the USA’s actions because they could see them on their television screens and read about them in their newspapers. Moreover, those same left-wing activists could give vent to their moral outrage on the streets without being killed. Unlike the Peronist trade unionists, gunned-down by the Argentinian generals’ goons. Or the protesting students, slaughtered by the Peoples Liberation Army in Beijing’s Tienanmen Square. Hatred of US imperialism and the effects of global capitalism has blinded the Western Left to the much, much worse atrocities committed by the West’s alleged “victims”.

Nor was its moral clarity improved by the demise of the Soviet Union and the PRC’s embrace of capitalism with Chinese characteristics. With the great engines of proletarian liberation either shut down, or converted to less altruistic purposes, the Western Left was forced to cast about for an ideological substitute. In place of the now defunct doctrines of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, Western leftists found themselves adopting the radically subjective nostrums of the so-called “New Social Movements” – better known today as “Identity Politics”.

Where Karl Marx had made the “proletarians of all lands” the heroes of his revolutionary drama, Identity Politics is driven by the horrendous depredations of its super-reactionary villain – the White Oppressor. All whites are complicit in the vast historical crimes – slavery, capitalism, imperialism – that have made the European peoples so rich and powerful, and the rest of humanity so weak and poor.

In this new ideological narrative, the pale, stale, former Marxists find themselves stripped of all positive agency. Immobilised by their “white guilt” and “white privilege”, Western leftists cannot hope to be the “good guys” of the ID-Pols’ emancipatory drama. Indeed, the only way they can avoid being lumped in with the “bad guys” is to back unreservedly the struggles of the non-white victims of Europe’s cultural cancer.

And so it is that we find Reid prophesying war with an almost reckless disregard for what is actually unfolding across the Middle East. A Left enthralled to the notion that the oppressed are always guiltless, and the oppressors guilty by definition, will not hesitate to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Houthis and Hamas.

As the British MP, Tom Tugendhat, lamented only yesterday on “X”: “It’s extraordinary to watch young men and women – who I’m sure would tell you they believe in freedom and equality – supporting groups like the Houthis who have reintroduced slavery, and systematically violate the rights of women and girls.”

Extraordinary, too, that the Palestinian poet, Mohammed El Kurd, can say “Our day will come. We must normalize massacres as the status quo”, and be cheered by his Western left-wing “allies” at a weekend pro-Palestinian rally in London.

It’s almost enough to make one wish that Robert Reid was right. That New Zealand was, indeed, unleashing war upon such reckless hate.

This essay was originally posted on the website on Monday, 15 January 2024.


Tiger Mountain said...

Might be time to turn off your MacBook Mr Trotter, when you get down to the level of criticising a working class stalwart such as Robert Reid.

Robert has been a Marxist internationalist for many decades, known around Asia Pacific in particular in such circles. From car industry struggles to TUF to First Union he has done more than most NZ online pundits could imagine.

Of course this country had no hardware to smash into one of the poorest countries on the planet along with the heroic poms and yanks–but–we are fully complicit thanks to 5 Eyes connections. US Imperialism always wants cover, the “willing” and it is shameful indeed that this Govt. has given it to them during one of the worst examples of genocide since the WWII Warsaw Ghetto.

Anonymous said...

Keeping myself anonymous for this one. Call me "that ally dude" if you want to comment in my direction.

I have a lot of dear friends in the Rainbow Mafia. I understand many of their struggles, to the best of my ability anyway, and appreciate a great deal of the hardship they've suffered. That's why I'll often cry foul when people can be so dismissive or derogatory towards their problems.

But it does get hard to hold my tongue when they complain to me, a middle aged white man, about how people who look at me are the problem for all the world's ills. Especially by a crowd who when asked what is their greatest virtue would proudly say "I don't judge others based on their race and gender."

I understand is often a disgruntled lashing out, an easy scapegoat, by a person I'll have known for at least a decade and know to be a fundamentally good person. But why is it their default bogeyman? Why do I have to hold my tongue to keep the peace?

Some of them that I'm closest to I have discussed these matters over the years. There was a big surge of resentment during 2015-2016, during the rise of Trump and Youtube algorithms pushing politically polarising content (for instance I was witness to the "Alt-right pipeline" trying to suck me in) but they've lost some steam since then and have mellowed out. Most people are being made comfortably numb by tik-tok, now Elon shat the bed on their favourite hangout and tumblr got rid of porn.

Archduke Piccolo said...

Hate breeds hate. The hate against Palestinian Arabs exhibited by Israel's Zionists these last 70-plus years was bound eventually to meet a requital. The attack by Hamas against Israel was that of a resistance movement against armed occupation. Israel is the occupying power: Israel does not get to claim 'self defence' by way of excuse for its genocide against the people of Gaza and the West Bank.

The Houthi of Yemen have their own fight against the Western powers. You don't get to bomb weddings and funerals without some kind of hit-back. The West, especially the US, the UK and NATO, has no room to whinge about it.

That New Zealand is not (for the moment) militarily active in the region does not mean it won't be. This country's lickspittle toadying of bloody-minded US and UK 'policy' in the Middle East is itself borderline criminal. How do we stand: the US is always right, or the US, right or wrong? The one stand is moronic; the other monstrous.

It is high time this country really did begin to stand on its own two feet, and to show some evidence it can 'punch above its weight'.

The Barron said...

I think we should be careful in our use of language. The Houthi tribe is an ethnic group within Yemen that are minority of Zaidi branch of Shai making 20-30% of the Yemen population, and not all part of 'an army of fanatical Shia fighters'. There has been far too much essentialisation of people in the middle-east. Palestinian people are not Hamas, Houthi people are not the Houthi movement. Indeed, the Houthi movement is named after the surname of the early leader of the movement, Hussein al-Houthi, who died in 2004. While they are Shia, the movement has at time allied with and recruited Yemen's Sunnis, as well as discriminating against Sunnis at other times. The Houthi Tribe and the Zaidi followers was denied independence and self-determination by the British, and have been caught in geo-politics since.

new view said...

It seems Reids stance on Palestine and his eagerness to be heard has encouraged him to write his truth in the hope that those who read it will know and accept this new truth. The result he's looking for is to build pressure on our government to make a stand in support of his truth. This idea to promote an agenda by leading this promotion with headline grabbing sensationalism is the fashion. We are seeing it repeated with Maori with statements like
"The National coalition is wanting to destroy Maori". Not going ahead with the smoking prohibition will "Kill more Maori" Of course it's nonsense but the headline has the effect of solidifying support for resistance to such policies then it has succeeded in what it's trying to achieve.
The problem is, like in Reids case the new truth isn't true, and in the case of Maori pushing back on the National Coalition policies, their claims obviously aren't true either. You then have to ask why the media doesn't call out this behaviour. I think we know the answer to that.

Terry Coggan said...

Lenin always insisted that in thinking geopolitically it’s necessary to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed nations, and in any conflict between the two to be on the side of the latter. However, mechanical application of this doctrine without regard to context can lead to untenable positions, for example to support for irredeemably reactionary organizations like Hamas or the Houthis in their current war with Israel. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Some leftists have attempted to apply to the current situation in the Mid-East Leon Trotsky’s hypothetical speculation in 1938 about a war between “democratic” Britain and Brazil, a nation oppressed by imperialism but at the time under the brutal Vargas dictatorship. Trotsky declared that in this putative war he would be on the side of “fascist” Brazil. But it’s important to understand his reasoning. He wrote that if Brazil was victorious “it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat.”

The opposite applies to the current war between Israel and Hamas. A victory for Hamas would be a disaster for ordinary Jews and Arabs and preclude for the foreseeable future the possibility of a just and lasting settlement between Israel and Palestine that would recognize both the right of Israel to exist and satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. The decisive defeat of Hamas, on the other hand, would open up space for Jewish and Arab working people to begin to work towards such a settlement. That’s why, in my opinion, all progressive people should be on the side of Israel in this war, despite the nature of the Netanyahu regime and the depredations of West Bank settlers.

David George said...

AP: "Hate breeds hate."
And that's your explanation and excuse for the invasion and atrocities of October 7th?

Likewise the thousand year history of Islamist (radical/fundamentalist/political Islam) oppression, eviction and genocide of religious and ethnic minorities throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and now sub Saharan Africa? The Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Armenians and Buddhists got what they deserved as well? The hundreds of Nigerian Christians massacred and mutilated at Christmas?

David George said...

Hamas isn't fighting for freedom, they're fighting for it's opposite. Total submission or death isn't freedom AFAIK.
From a recent comment

"when Hamas went on a rape rampage, slitting the throats of people, cutting their heads off, and shooting their faces beyond recognition, they never said the word “Palestine”, they never said the word “occupation”, they never said “freedom” or “resistance” - they only said the words “Allahu Akbar” - cheering it ecstatically as they committed acts of disgusting sadism. They believed they were delivering the greatest thing their religion had to offer."

Anonymous said...

Chris, you are, of course, completely correct about the RNZAF's inability to join in directly the strikes on Yemeni territory. It does indeed have no strike aircraft capable of doing so.

But it does have modern, war fighting, aircraft capable of assisting any US/UK/Canadian/Australian effort. (The little finger of the Anglo/American fist is indeed a bit skinnier, compared to the past, but it's still there).

That flows from the decision, announced by then Defense Minister Ron Mark, in 2018 to replace the aging P3 Orion sub hunters with new Boeing P8 Poseidon sub hunters. The great controversy of the day was the decision to get full anti-submarine warfare capability, not just much cheaper options for maritime surveillance and search and rescue only. Part of the controversy about maintaining such commonality and interoperability with traditional allies was that it could lead to Middle East deployments. The Poseidon decision was seem as a win for NZ First and the right at the time. The new coalition government is probably quietly pleased it has this capability to offer friends and allies.

According to the RNZAF website, all four of it's new P8 Poseidon aircraft are now available for "tasking". So the RNZAF may indeed be able to be some part of "...unleashing war on such reckless hate".

However, you sum up very well the dilemma facing old lefties, of all shades of opinions. Robert Reid obviously feels he remains both relevant, and true to his beliefs. If he has reflected at all on how he came to be allied with genocidal, raping, torturing, murdering, lying Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it doesn't show.

But it's true sticking to your guns can come with a high price too. I have the greatest admiration for Jill Ovens for sticking to her guns. To continue standing up for working women in the union movement became impossible, in the face of the trans insanity. This lead Jill to break her long standing association with Labour and start the Women's Rights Party. This has lead to verbal and physical abuse of members for saying such "outrageous" things as sex is real, binary and immutable, no-one can have a penis AND be a lesbian, men should stay out of women's sports, and schools should teach science, not ideology. (Declaration of interest. I joined the party to help if get to the 500 members needed, and voted for it at the election. Not without wondering first if a vote for NZ First might be a better tactical vote, tbh).

I think we are already seeing the shape of things to come, particularly in the Wellington region, unless the new government can, and does, change from the previous course. As the new ideology (a pseudo-religion, in my view) takes hold we have citizens expected to provide extra water storage for themselves while some 40% of fresh water flows away through leaky pipes. Those responsible blame historic underfunding by the councils that own the water entity, and claim to be doing the maximum current funding allows. An engineer "working" for that water entity brags on line about doing no work, and hopes she can continue getting her salary for zero work! While money is spent on cycleways and (I am not making this up!) signs in play areas in parks to help non-verbal children communicate! I'm not against helping non verbal children, or providing cycleways, in principle. I just think adequate clean water in, and effective treatment of waste water out, should be a top council priority, well ahead of virtue signaling trivia.

Loz said...

Imperialism has consistently relied on depicting the fringes of its political and military dominance as treacherous badlands, inhabited by individuals driven by hatred. Conversely, liberalism frames its war as a moral endeavor, casually dismissing the ensuing death and destruction as a necessary consequence of fighting evil.

On the surface, it's difficult to reconcile a liberal's apparent eagerness to deliver death to those who resist foreign imperial interests, to understand a liberal parliament joining the President of Ukraine in applauding a veteran of the Waffen SS as a paragon of virtue, or to comprehend liberal support for tactics reminiscent of the Third Reich being used against millions in occupied Gaza.

The revered principles of international solidarity once shattered the Second International, as imperial narratives swayed life-long socialists to view their former comrades as malevolent beings, driven by hatred. Tales of the barbaric "Hun," reveling in spearing babies on bayonets, incited former allies to join in the bloodlust.

Imperialism harnesses the indignation of liberals who, without question, accept stories of such horrific evil. The "Coalition of the Willing" and its ensuing war, which claimed half a million lives, was predicated on a falsehood—infants purportedly removed from incubators and left to perish. Similarly, claims of Gaddafi supplying his troops with Viagra to commit rapes and the stories of Hamas involving decapitated babies and systematic sexual assaults—all of which have been thoroughly debunked—are still repeated by those who should know better.

Mohammed el-Kurd, a poet, writer, journalist, and anti-apartheid activist, resonates with the ethos of a young Chris Trotter, albeit with less assured public speaking skills. Addressing the 500,000-strong 'Ceasefire Now' rally in London, he asserted that standing against racism and opposing massacres aligns with the right side of history. His concluding remark, 'We must not normalize massacres as the status quo,' was unfortunately fumbled, but understood in the context of the rally. While his intent was clear to the audience, the gleeful reporting of his misstep to suggest that the antiwar movement endorses massacres, while the ongoing daily massacres are framed as the path to peace, is both Orwellian and dishonest.

If a comrade chooses to quote as wisdom the words of Tory MPs, rather than defiantly condemn apartheid and industrial slaughter, it's a clear indication of who has truly lost their way.

Jason Barrier said...

Brilliant. The older anti-American activists seem to wear a 'historical eye-patch' that blinds them to all the ravages of the anti-American regimes they now 'show solidarity with' - and the the younger ones? - well they don't seem to have even a superficial grasp of global history and what has led to the events they now wave flags for.

Tom Hunter said...

The dead hand of the USSR:

Adopting the “chauvinism” and “racism” and “terrorist” accusations was an important move for the PLO in appealing to the Western left. And the Protocols accusations appealed to some disparate groups on the far right, as well. And who was it who helped invent – or at least laid the groundwork for – “anti-colonialism” and “postcolonial” theory? Why, those champions of freedom and national autonomy, the Soviets.

David George said...

Sorry Loz, there is a massive body of independently verified evidence of systemic rape, beheadings, torture, mutilation (both post and pre-mortem) and burning to death. A few reports just on the rape and mutilation of women for you:

I don't get it. How can people simply ignore or excuse the actions and intentions of the theocratic, imperialist, fascist and tyrannical Iranian regime and HIS terrorist proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi? Just the other day in the Red Sea there was a direct hit on a Greek freighter by a Houthi missile. They (Iran) even had a go at Pakistan the other day inviting a bombing of Iran in retaliation. I'm not sure how any of that can be twisted into being the fault of the dreaded "imperialists" but I suspect you can oblige.

"If a comrade chooses to quote as wisdom the words of Tory MPs ......has truly lost their way."

Truth is where you find it Loz, often in the place you least want to look. Way to go though; your pathetic attempt at shaming "comrade Chris" into conformity is unlikely, if I judge Chris correctly, to have the effect you intend. Who would want to ally themselves with that?

David George said...

Imtiaz Mahmood "I am an Arab Jew. My family lived in Israel, the land of the Jews, since before any Ashkenazi Jew laid a foot on it. My family moved from Lebanon because the Arab Muslims made our lives hell and would frequently attack and kill us in the village nevertheless one by one.

They had lived in Lebanon for almost 300 years and before that, they lived in southern Iraq… for over 1300 years. That’s right, since before Islam even existed. We have been there since the time of the elder religions. You know, the ones that were all over the region from Persia to Iraq and Syria and all the way down to Yemen and even North Africa. Like the Zoroastrians.

The Arab Jews didn’t get turned by the Ashkenazi. They got turned by the constant bloody pogroms the Arab Muslims would inflict on Arab Jews every single decade… for 1300 fucking years.

They murdered so many of our people, tortured them, and burned them… pretty much Oct 7 twice per generation, for 1300 years. And when we had the opportunity and just didn’t want to be completely wiped out like a dozen other entire populations, the Muslims genocided or forced to convert, we fled. And we fled and fled and fled until we realized we could find a safe haven in the land that 2000 years was ours to start with before any of the Muslims ever existed.

My family arrived during the Ottoman Empire and we lived in somewhat subjugation but still were left in peace. We built new villages and towns around our ancestral temple in Jerusalem. We started to buy swathes of land up and down the country.

Then, one day, Muslims best and closest friends in Germany, the Nazis, decided to come on over and teach them all-new ways to kill us. And they wanted no time trying out their new death tricks. Then Mufti went over to have lunch with Hitler and boom… we were fucked and he killed 6 million of us across Europe.

When those who survived came over because they’d heard the British were giving the land they now ruled to the Jews, the Arab Muslims were not happy. Why? Because as they did for 1300 years before, they wanted it all and wanted us dead. So they attacked in pogroms for 20 years until we finally had enough and fought back, even against the British who let them kill us.

And finally, in 1948, we declared independence, and Muslims declared genocidal war on us, after just one damned day. Just before that war of 48, Muslim armies demanded all the Arabs on the land to leave so that they could kill every single Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jew alike. The majority of Muslims left Israel so we could be killed, and we ended up kicking their asses and winning the war. The Nakba wasn’t their Nakba. It was ours. They betrayed us, not the other way around. My family was there when they did it.

And then for the last 76 years, Muslims have been crying that they want the land back. Well, erm, NO!!! It’s not their land, and it never was. Muslims were all stuck in a cage in Gaza but Israel didn’t control Gaza then. Egypt did. And Muslims know what? They didn’t complain once. Then they attacked us in 1967 to slaughter us all, again, and we won, again. But this time we conquered Gaza and what’s now the West Bank."

The Barron said...

It is easy to maintain a first world bias when viewing geo-political events. I think we should understand that disruption of shipping in the Red Sea does not just impact Auckland, Sydney or Los Angeles prices of Italian leathers, but Madagascar or South Sudan getting food aid. Developing world countries in East Africa, South Asia and the Pacific having cost added to essential goods and subsequent inflation. None of these nations or people are able to protect supply lines and are dependent upon other nations to up hold maritime law. Those crewing the vessels being fired upon are primarily from developing nations and often suffering poor conditions and pay.

When we are party to coalitions to protect shipping in the area from Somali pirates, we have little problem in doing our part. Houthi operatives have previously aimed at international shipping and been deterred without comment. The Houthi movement are on Human Rights Watch for denying a town water until surrender. None of these things have previously got a progressive backlash in NZ.

The difference this time is that the Houthi movement are dedicating the bombing to the plight of these in Gaza. In New Zealand, if your sympathy lies with the Gazan people, you ae then incorrectly in most cases envisaged as a Hamas sympathizer, which in turn is supposed to put the Red Sea missiles under the same Gaza umbrella.

All of this is getting to be placard politics. I see the government limiting debate on crucial deployment because little would be on topic, this is for me that real problem. Neither the left of the right are able identify and talk through issue internally of externally anymore. It is either a contest of straw men being knock down or the surprise announcement as declaration without debate.

If I was a developing nation looking over I would simply be confused as to why my supply routes may be protected and essential good available and wonder if our socio-economic well-being factors in the decision-making or protest.

Loz said...

@David George, you are consistent in your retelling of a narative that many are realising to be baseless.

On October 6th, hundreds of people were burned alive. In the days that followed, the Israeli government adjusted its casualty figures, declaring 200 of those burned victims to be Palestinian. Israeli media outlets, including Haaretz, Ynetnews, and the Jerusalem Post, have openly discussed the implementation of the Hannibal Directive. This directive authorised the military to fire upon its own citizens to prevent them from being used in hostage negotiations. The evidence is undeniable, with Israel releasing footage of helicopters destroying over 70 vehicles, news footage capturing tanks firing into kibbutzim, and audio recordings of pilots seeking confirmation of their "mass Hannibal" orders. The use of high explosives resulted in hundreds being burned alive or fatally wounded by shrapnel.

Despite the clear discussion of the Hannibal Directive in Israeli media, there seems to be a media blackout in the West. Meanwhile, individuals like yourself suggest that the carnage, including the burning and mutilation of bodies, was self-inflicted by Hamas—a claim that lacks credibility.

Israeli Police have had to appeal to the public as they are still unable to identify any actual victims of rape.

Most claims of "systematic rape" trace back to a limited number of sources, notably Zaka — a group previously discredited for its reports—and an individual known as "S" from a music festival, who provided a witness statement of a horrific incident. However, no physical evidence or corpses have been found to support this testimony. The varying witness accounts further complicate the narrative, with some initially not mentioning or denying any observation of rape.

Claiming any instance of rape based on these accounts is challenging, let alone asserting it was "systematic." This complexity was underscored when the New York Times withdrew a planned podcast related to these rape claims, following internal backlash over the credibility of the allegations.

Chris Trotter said...

To: Bowalley Road Readers.

I have published Loz's comment so that you can see for yourselves the appalling nature of the disinformation flowing from the Pro-Palestinian side of the conflict.

To: Loz.

Barring a truly Damascene change of heart, your last comment will be your last comment. Go and peddle Hamas's lies somewhere else.