Settler colonialism in action

[Travis B.]

it is a mocking reference to the way the corporate media manipulate people's minds. there's a genocide, bombing of hospitals full of children, probably a hundred thousand dead by now (the 30k figure stopped updating a long time ago, while the relentless bombing of the city continues) and yet, the question most relevant to journalists often seems to be "do you condemn hamas". I'm sure after the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki, print papers wrote little editorials about how bad the imperial japanese regime after the nuking of civilians. It's a cheap way to say "they deserve it" without having to say it outright, and to silence the denunciation of a vast evil through the mandatory denunciation of a much smaller evil. it is, in this way, similar to "gorillions", a mocking of the silly numbers right-wing orgs come up with: you know the ones I mean, "communism killed seventy hundred trillion billion people" type stuff.

So one can't condemn both the State of Israel (i.e. an apartheid state that is currently engaging in genocide) and Hamas (i.e. a paramilitary gang that probably only killed or kidnapped as many as it did because that's how many it could kill or kidnap), but rather only one or the other? Or is that "both sides-ism"?

[Travis B.]

It should be remembered that neither the Gazans deserve what the Israeli gov't is doing to them nor the Israelis deserved what Hamas did on October 7th. One must not confuse the State of Israel with the Israeli Jews nor Hamas with the Gazans; the Gazans do not deserve collective punishment for the actions of Hamas as we see here, and those Israelis killed or kidnapped on October 7th should not be dismissed as a mere unfortunate effect of the policies of the State of Israel.

[Torco]

So one can't condemn both the State of Israel (i.e. an apartheid state that is currently engaging in genocide) and Hamas (i.e. a paramilitary gang that probably only killed or kidnapped as many as it did because that's how many it could kill or kidnap), but rather only one or the other? Or is that "both sides-ism"?

course one can, but we're conlangers: we all know that communication is more complicated than the literal, direct propositional meaning of an utterance. (though at that level, the condemnation thing is still rather iffy: how many americans, for example, would do six times what Hamas has done if an invader had done a sixth of what the state of israel has done to the palestinian population of israel? and, I assure you, they'd be called heroes and patriots. do we condemn the dutch resistence? the maquisards?). ignoring that, yeah, what's mocked here is not the particular act of condemning or not condemning hamas, but rather *what responding to the condemnation of a genocide by demanding the condemnation of a subgroup of the genocided population* is doing, especially in light that the genocide itself is being carried out in the name of exterminating that particular subgroup, which in turn is made equivocal by the fact that plenty of israeli official voices take the line that "hamas and the palestinians are the same thing, no baby is innocent, all palestinians are hamas, exterminate hamas".

[Travis B.]

So one can't condemn both the State of Israel (i.e. an apartheid state that is currently engaging in genocide) and Hamas (i.e. a paramilitary gang that probably only killed or kidnapped as many as it did because that's how many it could kill or kidnap), but rather only one or the other? Or is that "both sides-ism"?

course one can, but we're conlangers: we all know that communication is more complicated than the literal, direct propositional meaning of an utterance. (though at that level, the condemnation thing is still rather iffy: how many americans, for example, would do six times what Hamas has done if an invader had done a sixth of what the state of israel has done to the palestinian population of israel? and, I assure you, they'd be called heroes and patriots. do we condemn the dutch resistence? the maquisards?).

The thing is that anti-Nazi/anti-fascist resistance in Europe during WW2 was mostly not aimed at killing Germans for the sake of killing Germans but rather for the sake of liberating the peoples of Europe from Nazi domination, but what Hamas has done was clearly aimed at killing and kidnapping Israelis for its own sake; it is one thing to kill occupying soldiers and their collaborators, it is another thing to kill hundreds of people who have no obvious connection to the State of Israel other than being Israelis at a music festival.

ignoring that, yeah, what's mocked here is not the particular act of condemning or not condemning hamas, but rather *what responding to the condemnation of a genocide by demanding the condemnation of a subgroup of the genocided population* is doing, especially in light that the genocide itself is being carried out in the name of exterminating that particular subgroup, which in turn is made equivocal by the fact that plenty of israeli official voices take the line that "hamas and the palestinians are the same thing, no baby is innocent, all palestinians are hamas, exterminate hamas".

The key thing is that what Hamas has done has not excuse the indiscriminateness and disproprotionateness of the response by the Israeli gov't, and conversely the indiscriminateness and disproportionateness of the response by the Israeli gov't does not retroactively justify the wanton killing of civilians by Hamas (and if Hamas could have killed or kidnapped more, as mentioned, they would have).

[Torco]

I mean... there's plenty to be criticized about the maquis, to be honest. they weren't gallant guerrillas geared solely to silence the SS and no one else, guerrilla war is real dirty. And no, I don't think it holds up to say "Hamas doesn't care about the liberation of palestinians from Israeli occupation, they just want to kill israeli civilians". their stated goals are to establish a palestinian islamic state in lieu of the current israeli state, just like the resistance to the nazis were about establishing a non-nazi state in lieu of the nazi state which at the time occupied france, the netherlands etcetera. I'm not saying hamas and the maquis are exact equivalents, but they do have in common that they're a resistence force against an occupation, and also that the occupying force they oppose wants to deny the occupied nationality the right of self-determination (amongst other things). of course not all tactics are equally legitimate and I don't want Hamas to succeed, myself (I'd rather no islamic states, indeed no religious states or ethnostates at all thank you very much, if at all possible), but the point is, they're not mouthfrothing demons from hell bent on nothing but the destruction of jewish life and property for its own sake, no. they're a concrete political movement made up of actual people who think they're doing what's best for their nation, what's just, what allah wants or whatever. Again, I ask: if in 2093 california became a concentration camp after an invasion by, I don't know, china, and after decades and decades of bombing, torture, disappearances etcetera some californians in 2155, after half a million dead or something in the wanton bombings and roundups of the chinese authorities, from which no californian returns, resort to bombing a music festival killing 70 chinese kids: is the bombing of the music festival the relevant fact of the situation? is there not something manipulative about all media for weeks insisting on "do you condemn the music festival bombing" everytime the californian genocide is mentioned? that's what's being mocked with the "do you condemn llamas" line.

[Travis B.]

The thing is this -- how does killing hundreds of civilians at a music festival advance the cause of Palestinian liberation? It doesn't -- all it does is give the Israeli gov't all the justification it needs to bring the hammer down on the Palestinians, regardless of their connection to Hamas. Has the cause of Palestinian liberation been advanced by this? No -- the likely long-term consequences of this, aside from the death and displacement of countless Gazans, is likely the transformation of Gaza from a bantustan to land directly militarily occupied by the State of Israel indefinitely. Sure, it has already made the State of Israel look worse in the eyes of the world than it did before, but that does not translate into actual Palestinian liberation.

[Ares Land]

that's what's being mocked with the "do you condemn llamas" line.

You think Hamas are freedom fighters, of sorts. I think they're just power-hungry thugs. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other and that's all right.

But, no, journalists asking politicians where exactly they stand isn't necessarily wrong. I mention this because here we get a bunch of left-wing politicians who are, let's say, pretty evasive on the subject -- but, you know, I'd kind of like to know what they think about it.

[Torco]

You think Hamas are freedom fighters, of sorts. I think they're just power-hungry thugs. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other and that's all right.

I try not to use terminology that's like this in my analysis, to be honest. I don't think there's any difference between, say, a terrorist and a freedom fighter, a militant group with aims towards power and a power-hungry bunch of thugs etcetera, except how ones feels about the people in question: again, our brave adventurers, their brutish invaders, right? What I think is what I've said, that Hamas is an islamist resistence movement opposing an occupation, often funded by Likud governments. What I think they are not is mindless murder drones that want to murder jews as a categorical imperative.

The thing is this -- how does killing hundreds of civilians at a music festival advance the cause of Palestinian liberation?

This is an interesting question, what is Hamas trying to do, but we won't answer well it if we decide beforehand that they're mindless murder drones. Assume they're a rational semi-state actor that aims at what they say they aim, and that they are what I think they are: what's the logic behind resisting an occupation? well, if you could just wage a normal war against them and win you wouldn't be a resistence group, you'd be an army (and a pretty big and strong one at that): all resistence groups can do, as a rule, is to make the occupation as costly for the invader as possible and hope they give up (like the us in vietnam) or collapse under the cost (which wouldn't be unprecedented, but is less likely).

To that end, you may embark in a number of different action lines: sabotage of the armed forces, random attacks against the civilians to which the occupying state owes itself, attacks against collaborators, etcetera. Horribly, if you get the occupying force to go from brutal occupation force to a genocide taskforce (i.e. you goad them into commiting visible and attention-grabbing atrocities) that imposes a concrete cost to the invader: it turns it, in what the US military calls "the information battlesphere" from an invasor (like russia, not nice) to a monster (like the third reich, very not nice). this harms its ability to engage in normal international relations, for example, and makes it in turn pretty expensive for its allies to continue to provide it with arms etcetera: if biden loses this election to trump, and especially if he loses it because enough people who would otherwise vote biden don't (i ain't voting for genocide joe no matter how bad trump is), then you've imposed a cost on your enemies. This, of course, isn't an ethical course of action, but it *is* a rational one, and if that's Hamas' play then it would be neither irrational nor ineffective: Israel has never enjoyed a fantastic international reputation outside the US, but I think we can all agree it worsened.

Now add religion to this: if you think death is not real, as religious people often do, then the value in your calculation of your enemy killing your civilians goes down, as they're just getting to be martyrs (a word the palestinians do use) and go to heaven or whatever. taken to the limit, this logic would entail that the best thing that could realistically happen for hamas is if israel nuked its bantustans, jordan and syria for good measure, deployed mustard gas, and explode a dirty bomb at the UN headquarters: sure, many people die, but Israel becomes -the media manipulation of the west is not omnipotent- a true pariah state, something exceedingly expensive for anyone to support.

This is evil, yes, and I don't want it: but it is a better analysis than "they are bad and do bad because are bad". this isn't even my own work, mind you, there's plenty of people who suggest this theses of, essentially, "Israeli atrocities benefit hamas".

[Travis B.]

Deliberately provoking genocide against your own people might be rational if your goal is to concentrate international condemnation against your adversary, but is hard to see as seeking liberation, since it is hard to be free if you are either dead or, at best, subject to far worse oppression than before while your adversary is no diminished in power.

[Ares Land]

This is an interesting question, what is Hamas trying to do, but we won't answer well it if we decide beforehand that they're mindless murder drones. Assume they're a rational semi-state actor that aims at what they say they aim, and that they are what I think they are: what's the logic behind resisting an occupation? well, if you could just wage a normal war against them and win you wouldn't be a resistence group, you'd be an army (and a pretty big and strong one at that): all resistence groups can do, as a rule, is to make the occupation as costly for the invader as possible and hope they give up (like the us in vietnam) or collapse under the cost (which wouldn't be unprecedented, but is less likely).

To that end, you may embark in a number of different action lines: sabotage of the armed forces, random attacks against the civilians to which the occupying state owes itself, attacks against collaborators, etcetera. Horribly, if you get the occupying force to go from brutal occupation force to a genocide taskforce (i.e. you goad them into commiting visible and attention-grabbing atrocities) that imposes a concrete cost to the invader: it turns it, in what the US military calls "the information battlesphere" from an invasor (like russia, not nice) to a monster (like the third reich, very not nice). this harms its ability to engage in normal international relations, for example, and makes it in turn pretty expensive for its allies to continue to provide it with arms etcetera: if biden loses this election to trump, and especially if he loses it because enough people who would otherwise vote biden don't (i ain't voting for genocide joe no matter how bad trump is), then you've imposed a cost on your enemies. This, of course, isn't an ethical course of action, but it *is* a rational one, and if that's Hamas' play then it would be neither irrational nor ineffective: Israel has never enjoyed a fantastic international reputation outside the US, but I think we can all agree it worsened.

Now add religion to this: if you think death is not real, as religious people often do, then the value in your calculation of your enemy killing your civilians goes down, as they're just getting to be martyrs (a word the palestinians do use) and go to heaven or whatever. taken to the limit, this logic would entail that the best thing that could realistically happen for hamas is if israel nuked its bantustans, jordan and syria for good measure, deployed mustard gas, and explode a dirty bomb at the UN headquarters: sure, many people die, but Israel becomes -the media manipulation of the west is not omnipotent- a true pariah state, something exceedingly expensive for anyone to support.

This is evil, yes, and I don't want it: but it is a better analysis than "they are bad and do bad because are bad". this isn't even my own work, mind you, there's plenty of people who suggest this theses of, essentially, "Israeli atrocities benefit hamas".

On that I agree with you; in fact most would agree with you that Hamas' actions are rational. And unethical.

Efficient though? No. I don't think Hamas will achieve any of its aim. The distinct impression I get is that Israel really doesn't care about international public opinion anymore.

[bradrn]

The distinct impression I get is that Israel really doesn't care about international public opinion anymore.

Honestly, it never really has. True or not, the impression of many in the Jewish community (and presumably the opinion of many Israelis too) is that the ‘international community’ is systemically antisemitic, and grossly biased against Israel. There’s not much point in listening to people who will only tell you you have no right to exist or defend yourself, so why bother?

(Note that I’m summarising the opinions of other people, not necessarily my own.)

[Travis B.]

The distinct impression I get is that Israel really doesn't care about international public opinion anymore.

Honestly, it never really has. True or not, the impression of many in the Jewish community (and presumably the opinion of many Israelis too) is that the ‘international community’ is systemically antisemitic, and grossly biased against Israel. There’s not much point in listening to people who will only tell you you have no right to exist or defend yourself, so why bother?

(Note that I’m summarising the opinions of other people, not necessarily my own.)

To me, though, I think that opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with anti-Semitism by supporters of the policies of the State of Israel. Likewise, opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with denying the Israeli people the right to exist. In such, comparisons with anti-Semitism have been cynically exploited to defend the policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians. Thus, if you oppose how the State of Israel has treated the Palestinians you automatically become an "anti-Semite". Also, this minimizes real anti-Semitism, which most certainly does exist, by eliminating the distinction between it and simple opposition to Israeli policy.

[Torco]

I agree that hamas' actions being liberatory is controversial if we apply the concept of liberation in an etic manner (etic, not ethic, as in etic vs. emic), which is why I don't use that term in the analysis: the stated goal of hamas is to make it so the territory currently ruled by israel is instead ruled by a state that a) is not israel (i.e. more generally not a jewish ethnostate) and b) is islamist.

I don't think Israel doesn't care about its international image: that'd be totally irrational on its part, being a state that survives to a large degree because of international commitments. I do think the Likud government is willing to absorb a lot of reputational damage, but there's a lot, and there's *a lot*. some latin american countries (which in this, tbh, are behaving a lot more ethically than the rest of the world, though possibly cause we have very little at stake here) already are disinviting israel from military fairs (chile), threatened to cut diplomatic ties (colombia),, and stuff like that. the bolivians and venezuelans already cut ties with them in something like 09 iirc.

I think the jewish ethnostate knows it's not the most well-loved kid in the schoolyard, but on the other hand its been spending a looooot of money to improve its image. this is due to two facts: one, that while Israel can tolerate low international approval, *very* low international approval has already proved the bane of supremacist ethnostates in history (again, look at south africa), and two, whether it's an important or essential military base abroad, Israel does not look viable outright without international -concretely US and NATO- support.

[bradrn]

The distinct impression I get is that Israel really doesn't care about international public opinion anymore.

Honestly, it never really has. True or not, the impression of many in the Jewish community (and presumably the opinion of many Israelis too) is that the ‘international community’ is systemically antisemitic, and grossly biased against Israel. There’s not much point in listening to people who will only tell you you have no right to exist or defend yourself, so why bother?

(Note that I’m summarising the opinions of other people, not necessarily my own.)

To me, though, I think that opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with anti-Semitism by supporters of the policies of the State of Israel. Likewise, opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with denying the Israeli people the right to exist. In such, comparisons with anti-Semitism have been cynically exploited to defend the policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians. Thus, if you oppose how the State of Israel has treated the Palestinians you automatically become an "anti-Semite". Also, this minimizes real anti-Semitism, which most certainly does exist, by eliminating the distinction between it and simple opposition to Israeli policy.

What you say is correct, but it has nothing to do with my comments there.

[Travis B.]

Honestly, it never really has. True or not, the impression of many in the Jewish community (and presumably the opinion of many Israelis too) is that the ‘international community’ is systemically antisemitic, and grossly biased against Israel. There’s not much point in listening to people who will only tell you you have no right to exist or defend yourself, so why bother?

(Note that I’m summarising the opinions of other people, not necessarily my own.)

To me, though, I think that opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with anti-Semitism by supporters of the policies of the State of Israel. Likewise, opposition to the State of Israel's policies has been deliberately conflated with denying the Israeli people the right to exist. In such, comparisons with anti-Semitism have been cynically exploited to defend the policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians. Thus, if you oppose how the State of Israel has treated the Palestinians you automatically become an "anti-Semite". Also, this minimizes real anti-Semitism, which most certainly does exist, by eliminating the distinction between it and simple opposition to Israeli policy.

What you say is correct, but it has nothing to do with my comments there.

The connection with your comments is that you said that "the 'international community' is systematically antisemitic, and grossly biased against Israel" when in fact much of the 'international community' is opposed to the State of Israel's policies as opposed to being truly anti-Semitic. (Yes, there are parts of the world where true anti-Semitism is rampant, such as much of the Arab world, but that is only part of the world.)

[Linguoboy]

I was surprised to see that the thread I split off from the discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict specifically to talk about larger underlying issues of colonialism and racism has become so active. Now I see it's because y'all are just using it to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This is a thankless occupation sometimes.

[bradrn]

I was surprised to see that the thread I split off from the discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict specifically to talk about larger underlying issues of colonialism and racism has become so active. Now I see it's because y'all are just using it to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Well, I did start out having a very interesting and productive discussion with Torco about the philosophy of leftism and the concept of settler colonialism. (One of the more productive Internet conversations I’ve had in a while, actually.) I’m honestly not quite sure how it became another Israel–Palestine thread.

[Torco]

well it's the most prominent example of settler colonialism violence in the current age soooo

[Travis B.]

I was surprised to see that the thread I split off from the discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict specifically to talk about larger underlying issues of colonialism and racism has become so active. Now I see it's because y'all are just using it to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Well, I did start out having a very interesting and productive discussion with Torco about the philosophy of leftism and the concept of settler colonialism. (One of the more productive Internet conversations I’ve had in a while, actually.) I’m honestly not quite sure how it became another Israel–Palestine thread.

It became another Israel-Palestine thread because I made a comment about the idea of whether colonizers ought to be obligated to return their land to the colonized and used Israel-Palestine as my primary example because it is recent and, in such, there are colonizers who have personally taken land from the colonized alive today. (I could have used South Africa as another example of this, of course.)

[rotting bones]

Agreed; but antisemitism is probably 80% ordinary human stupidity and 20% machiavellian dealings.

In my reading, it always gets started with the powerful stirring up lynch mobs for personal gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtf2TYmuw8