Settler colonialism in action

[Torco]

Aronson's article just seems to me to be an effort to justify Israel's actions at all costs, as so much zionist rhetoric is. for example this line about how "all urban warfare causes civilian casualties". really? all urban warfare entails cutting off water to millions of people? demolishing fully half -at least- of all buildings in the relevant area? Israel *has* to starve the entirety of the population of the strip? really? ah, right, cause the UN is just full of hamas. everyone who isn't for the genocide is hamas, after all. even his bolded rhetorical question:

Suppose the Palestinian side got everything you wanted for it; then what would be your plan for the survival of Israel’s Jews?

.

right, so the "palestinian side" wants to genocide the jews, which would be bad, and that's why the jews *need* to genocide the palestinians, which is justifiable. and besides, this is such a trivially easy question to answer: the answer is laws. the same way every state that has some ethnic conflict deals with it: laws, and police, and investigations, and the rest of it. how do the neonazis and the redskins not genocide each other in the streets of santiago? how do the afrikaaners not get wiped out by the bantus in south africa? well, if things get too rough, if anyone dies, cops come in and they investigate and take people to jail and blabla. this outrage that a population incarcerated in the world's largest open-air prison, or concentration camp rather, and subjected to nearly a century of apartheid would -clutches pearls- fight back, is disingenous: what would the jews do if the tables were reversed, lie down and take it? would he be as outraged if the inmates in the nazi concentration camps were to blow up a bridge or something? of course not, cause we Israelis -the logic goes- are the good guys, and they're the bad guys, whereas the nazis were the bad guys and the prisoners the good. no actions by the Israeli regime can change that.

this being said, yeah, he points out correctly the other big problem for a two-state solution: if there was a proper palestinian state, with independence and sovreignty and the rest of it, it would declare war on Israel relatively soon, backed by Iran and others: honestly, can you blame them? 70 years of apartheid, of phone calls in the middle of the night going "we're going to bomb your house in 30 minutes, please leave". of people disappearing, being tortured or just getting shot in the streets. of checkpoints, of water rationing to death while the israelis water their golf courts, of preventable deaths via medicine shortages. yeah, I'd feel pretty positive about a war on israel were I a palestinian. But see, "they would declare war on us if we let them go" does not justify declaring a war, "they would exterminate us given the chance" does not justify exterminating them. it's pure wh40k logic: the xenos *might* be a threat, so we will wipe them from the galaxy. emperor protects.

thing is, a one-state solution is also unlikely under Israel: what israel is, according to its constitution (or the thing it has which is closest to one, the basic law) is a jewish state where the exercise of self-determination is exclusive to the jews. so a one state solution is unlikely as long as Israel is the state ruling that territory. as long as Israel exists, it's prisoner, guerrilla or compliant second class citizen for the non-jews in the region.

[Travis B.]

Probably the best comparison to a one-state solution is modern-day South Africa. Sure, there is ethnic conflict today, with murders of White farmers and like -- but this is by no means tantamount to genocide even though the proportion of Whites is much smaller than the proportion of Israeli Jews in Israel/Palestine. If the Blacks in South Africa truly wanted to drive the White population, or the Afrikaners in particular, into the sea they very much could -- but they haven't -- even though they have just as much reason to resent the Afrikaners as the Palestinians have to resent the Israeli Jews and the Afrikaners today have far less ability to resist.

[Ares Land]

Don’t fool yourself. There may be a few exceptions, but what they mostly want is a ‘one-state solution’ where Arabs are second-class citizens. If it really must be said, that’s not a sustainable solution for anyone.

I should've been clearer, really I don't like the idea either and I'm not terribly hopeful about it.
It does look like a likely outcome, alas.
My thoughts might be a little naive. I didn't start out knowing a whole lot about the whole situation, and I'm trying to catch up as best as I can.
My understanding is that the Israeli right or far-right would actually prefer that such an outcome and they're purposefully cooked up the current conditions -- and keep going at it so that it becomes inevitable.

I’ve just been pointed to this truly excellent article by Scott Aaronson: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7845. It’s well worth a read.

I agree with the general point that social network anti-Zionism is getting disturbing, and that a lot of people making public comments don't really understand that much about the situation, and haven't thought things through.

Not that I really understand much about it, or that I have thought things through myself. But it seems I can't resist the temptation either, so with all that being said, here are a few thoughts. I'll try to point out the stuff I don't understand along the way.

I think people tend to forget that Hamas is also part of the problem. I don't think it's completely wrong it's in Hamas' best interest to have as many civilian deaths as possible. I don't doubt for a second that the Israeli government and Tsahal are acting like butchers but, yeah, Hamas is entirely complicit in it. What is not clear is why the Israeli government seemingly put itself in the double situation of fighting on one side of the conflict and handling humanitarian aid on the other hand. It's not clear to me why seemingly no other country realized that the positions was untenable. (Maybe someone protested - I honestly don't know.)

Aaronson seems confident that Netanyahu will be removed. That doesn't square with what I hear from other sources. One Israeli guy I talked with told me 'At this point, it's going to take a stake in the heart.'
OK, maybe it's anecdotal, but still. The next election is in 2026. Other members of the coalition don't look exactly like flower children to me.

He makes a fair point that there's nobody to negotiate with on the Palestinian side. I think we can all come up with several ideal political solutions that would work on paper, but any realistic peace plan will have to be negotiated with someone.

[Travis B.]

I think people tend to forget that Hamas is also part of the problem. I don't think it's completely wrong it's in Hamas' best interest to have as many civilian deaths as possible. I don't doubt for a second that the Israeli government and Tsahal are acting like butchers but, yeah, Hamas is entirely complicit in it. What is not clear is why the Israeli government seemingly put itself in the double situation of fighting on one side of the conflict and handling humanitarian aid on the other hand. It's not clear to me why seemingly no other country realized that the positions was untenable. (Maybe someone protested - I honestly don't know.)

If the Israeli gov't were smart they would not play into Hamas's hands with their sheerly disproportionate and indiscriminate conduct of war. Propagandistically it is an own goal. As you say, every innocent civilian that is directly killed by the IDF or starved to death or who dies from lack of medical care serves Hamas's purposes.

[Travis B.]

And yes, they have done everything to squander their goodwill after 7 October and unite the world against them.

[Moose-tache]

But Travis, do you condemn llamas?

[Moose-tache]

Anyway, I mostly stay out of the "Libs discover world politics" threads, but geez, this one is bad.

1) There is not "no one to negotiate with," according to Netanyahu's administration, who negotiated with Hamas over such administrative things as work permits.
2) The relative lack of a uniting voice for Palestinians, or a local government capable of administering a peace agreement, is the deliberate accomplishment of Netanyahu. If somebody removes their opponent's ability to negotiate, signs point to the fact that they never intended to negotiate.
3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town. This is exactly the same logic that lets people turn a blind eye to police raids in minority neighborhoods over drugs and theft.

No one in Israel or the United States has demonstrated any interest in addressing the problem that they created, instead pretending that whatever inevitable organization arose to oppose them is the real problem.

Alright, I'll let you get back to it. I'm sure you all have plenty of tut-tutting about how the Palestinians just need to get a haircut and a real job in your schedule book.

[Travis B.]

Anyway, I mostly stay out of the "Libs discover world politics" threads, but geez, this one is bad.

1) There is not "no one to negotiate with," according to Netanyahu's administration, who negotiated with Hamas over such administrative things as work permits.
2) The relative lack of a uniting voice for Palestinians, or a local government capable of administering a peace agreement, is the deliberate accomplishment of Netanyahu. If somebody removes their opponent's ability to negotiate, signs point to the fact that they never intended to negotiate.
3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town. This is exactly the same logic that lets people turn a blind eye to police raids in minority neighborhoods over drugs and theft.

No one in Israel or the United States has demonstrated any interest in addressing the problem that they created, instead pretending that whatever inevitable organization arose to oppose them is the real problem.

Alright, I'll let you get back to it. I'm sure you all have plenty of tut-tutting about how the Palestinians just need to get a haircut and a real job in your schedule book.

Completely agreed.

[Travis B.]

But Travis, do you condemn llamas?

Umm I do not comprehend this non-sequitur.

[bradrn]

2) The relative lack of a uniting voice for Palestinians, or a local government capable of administering a peace agreement, is the deliberate accomplishment of Netanyahu. If somebody removes their opponent's ability to negotiate, signs point to the fact that they never intended to negotiate.

Yes, one more reason to hate that man.

3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town.

Have you forgotten October 7 so quickly? It was planned by Hamas and it was carried out by Hamas, and therefore responsibility for the atrocities done on that day lies with Hamas. Calling something ‘not complicit’ in its own actions is what we say of animals, not humans.

And let’s not forget either that, even at this very moment, Hamas is still holding over 100 people hostage in Gaza. Are they ‘not complicit’ in that, too? The answer is, of course, that they certainly are: the members of Hamas are the people who are keeping the hostages captive.

[Travis B.]

3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town.

Have you forgotten October 7 so quickly? It was planned by Hamas and it was carried out by Hamas, and therefore responsibility for the atrocities done on that day lies with Hamas. Calling something ‘not complicit’ in its own actions is what we say of animals, not humans.

And let’s not forget either that, even at this very moment, Hamas is still holding over 100 people hostage in Gaza. Are they ‘not complicit’ in that, too? The answer is, of course, that they certainly are: the members of Hamas are the people who are keeping the hostages captive.

Moose-tache's point is that in the end Hamas is effectively the creation of the State of Israel, not necessarily directly, but still as an consequence of its policies. Yes, October 7th was directly carried out by Hamas, but if it were not for the Israeli gov't's policies it would not have existed in the first place.

[bradrn]

3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town.

Have you forgotten October 7 so quickly? It was planned by Hamas and it was carried out by Hamas, and therefore responsibility for the atrocities done on that day lies with Hamas. Calling something ‘not complicit’ in its own actions is what we say of animals, not humans.

And let’s not forget either that, even at this very moment, Hamas is still holding over 100 people hostage in Gaza. Are they ‘not complicit’ in that, too? The answer is, of course, that they certainly are: the members of Hamas are the people who are keeping the hostages captive.

Moose-tache's point is that in the end Hamas is effectively the creation of the State of Israel, not necessarily directly, but still as an consequence of its policies. Yes, October 7th was directly carried out by Hamas, but if it were not for the Israeli gov't's policies it would not have existed in the first place.

‘Hamas is the creation of Israel’… really? Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its major backers are Qatar and Iran. Yes, Netanyahu has encouraged and funded Hamas to further his political goals, but Netanyahu — how many times do I have to say this — is not the State of Israel. (And note that he did it in as much secrecy as possible, because he knew how many Israelis would find it abhorrent.)

[bradrn]

And, let me add to that previous post: even if Hamas is the creation of Israel (which it isn’t), that doesn’t magically absolve it of responsibility for all the things that it did, which is what Moose-tache suggested.

[Travis B.]

Moose-tache's point is that in the end Hamas is effectively the creation of the State of Israel, not necessarily directly, but still as an consequence of its policies. Yes, October 7th was directly carried out by Hamas, but if it were not for the Israeli gov't's policies it would not have existed in the first place.

‘Hamas is the creation of Israel’… really? Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its major backers are Qatar and Iran. Yes, Netanyahu has encouraged and funded Hamas to further his political goals, but Netanyahu — how many times do I have to say this — is not the State of Israel. (And note that he did it in as much secrecy as possible, because he knew how many Israelis would find it abhorrent.)

Hamas is the creation of the State of Israel in the way that confining oppressed people into a bantustan is a perfect way to encourage the development of paramilitary gangs, just like the policies of American cities towards inner-city ghettos only helps encourage the development of street gangs. Yes, Hamas may be an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it would not have gained traction had it not been for the State of Israel's policies, just like how the Provisional IRA would never have gotten far had it not been for the British gov't's policies in Northern Ireland or the ANC would never have existed had it not been for apartheid (yes, the ANC had paramilitaries -- google "necklacing").

[bradrn]

Moose-tache's point is that in the end Hamas is effectively the creation of the State of Israel, not necessarily directly, but still as an consequence of its policies. Yes, October 7th was directly carried out by Hamas, but if it were not for the Israeli gov't's policies it would not have existed in the first place.

‘Hamas is the creation of Israel’… really? Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its major backers are Qatar and Iran. Yes, Netanyahu has encouraged and funded Hamas to further his political goals, but Netanyahu — how many times do I have to say this — is not the State of Israel. (And note that he did it in as much secrecy as possible, because he knew how many Israelis would find it abhorrent.)

Hamas is the creation of the State of Israel in the way that confining oppressed people into a bantustan is a perfect way to encourage the development of paramilitary gangs, just like the policies of American cities towards inner-city ghettos only helps encourage the development of street gangs. Yes, Hamas may be an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it would not have gained traction had it not been for the State of Israel's policies, just like how the Provisional IRA would never have gotten far had it not been for the British gov't's policies in Northern Ireland or the ANC would never have existed had it not been for apartheid (yes, the ANC had paramilitaries -- google "necklacing").

That’s fair enough, but I wouldn’t call the IRA ‘a creation of Britain’ either. I feel that phrasing is a mischaracterisation of the situation.

(And yes, I know about uMkhonto we Sizwe too. They did some nasty stuff, but nothing approaching what Hamas has done.)

[Ares Land]

Anyway, I mostly stay out of the "Libs discover world politics" threads, but geez, this one is bad.

Not everyone is an American, and people you disagree with are not necessarily 'Libs.'
I freely admit there are plenty of things I don't fully understand about the situation, but I don't think I'm alone on this. I also don't think it's only 'Libs' that don't fully understand the situation, either.

1) There is not "no one to negotiate with," according to Netanyahu's administration, who negotiated with Hamas over such administrative things as work permits.
2) The relative lack of a uniting voice for Palestinians, or a local government capable of administering a peace agreement, is the deliberate accomplishment of Netanyahu. If somebody removes their opponent's ability to negotiate, signs point to the fact that they never intended to negotiate.

Yes, that's in part Netanyahu's doing and more generally the Israeli government deliberately set up the whole situation. Though, you know, Hamas is still funded by Iran and Qatar. And as I mentioned, there are plenty of actors -- the US, many EU countries -- were very happy to turn a blind eye to the situation and hope the problem would somehow go away.
Also, Hamas itself is responsible; it has repressed all opposition in the Gaza strip.

And no matter who's responsible -- and the Israeli government still bears a huge bit of that responsibility -- fact still remains that there is no one to negotiate with.

3) Hamas is a paramilitary gang that operates a local government. It's exactly what you get when you decimate a place as badly as Gaza. It's no more complicit in the current state of affairs than Tina Turner is complicit in the crime rate of Barter Town. This is exactly the same logic that lets people turn a blind eye to police raids in minority neighborhoods over drugs and theft.

What? No. Of course it's complicit, and of course it's still fully responsible for what it does.

One thing I really don't get is the urge to find excuses for Hamas. It doesn't have to be black and white. We can condemn both Netanyahu and his coalition and Tsahal and Hamas.

[Ares Land]

And yes, they have done everything to squander their goodwill after 7 October and unite the world against them.

Sadly, I don't think the Israeli government cares at all about international opinion, or goodwill. What they want is to achieve... whatever they hope to achieve(*)... and deal with world opinion later on.

(*) And that's where things get pretty grim, because the stated goal is to root out Hamas entirely -- which is impossible and they know it.

[zompist]

1) There is not "no one to negotiate with," according to Netanyahu's administration, who negotiated with Hamas over such administrative things as work permits.

And no matter who's responsible -- and the Israeli government still bears a huge bit of that responsibility -- fact still remains that there is no one to negotiate with.

Sure there is. Israel is negotiating with Hamas right now. The talks are always on the verge of collapse, but that's how talks go. If there's an agreement of any sort, it will be hammered out the night before.

There's also the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu's policy for years has been to quietly support Hamas in order to undermine Fatah, but that's his policy, not any constraint on the PA side. Netanyahu has been taking advantage of the war to let settlers and the army run rampant in the West Bank, but again, that's his policy, not the PA's.

[Raphael]

Anyway, I mostly stay out of the "Libs discover world politics" threads, but geez, this one is bad.

Err, what? If by "Libs" you mean "anyone who's neither a tankie nor a right-winger", then, whatever the flaws of their own understanding of the world, they at least make more sense than tankies or right-wingers.

[Torco]

But Travis, do you condemn llamas?

Umm I do not comprehend this non-sequitur.

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.