Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Isn't this illegal? Iran-Contra 2.0

roachboy · 03-07-2008, 06:03 AM

to my mind, there is a way in which this is simple. the words are simple anyway.

by this point, all slogans concerning israel's "right to exist" are nothing more than political slogans. they speak to alienation and a form of nostalgia for a life without colonial occupation. they are rhetorical devices. you know this. i know this. everyone fucking knows this.

by this point, it is obvious that if israel were to begin making serious moves toward ending the occupation that the frame of reference folk like to throw around as continuous since 1948 even though nothing is continuous since 1948 least of all israel itself, which is a regional military superpower in 2008 which is surely was not in 1948, but hey no mater, folk like to play historian when it is convenient for them, but they don't like to think too much when they do it. if you cant distinguish discontinuities and continuities then maybe playing historian is too much for you and you should simply watch more tv.

so the geo-political situation seems a variable not a fixed parameter.
the slogans of hamas etc. are slogans. bargaining chips.
israel could negociate seriously, i think they would find MORE THAN willing partners in it because if you imagine that ANYONE wins in the present degrading situation, you're delusional.

well except for one thing.
the problem comrades, is the settlements.
the problems that follow from this:

a. they are centers of extreme right politics.
likud needs the far right. so like any conservative party that has to give handjobs to neofascists, this has consequences. [[edit: i think the krach party, for example, is a neofascist organization.]]

b. i dont think the right has the stomach for what would be required to remove the settlements, now that they are there. i dont think the right can face the prospect of a de facto civil war, what would look like a civil war, what would generate the reality and image of division within a "national community" that is central to conservative political ideology.

edit: this would not only provide potentially very ugly tv footage but would also trigger a debate about what israel *is* inside of israel. i think that debate has already been a central feature of politics about israel--within zionism, there were multiple visions--and if you think about the range of political organizations within israel, has been a debate since 1948 as well. there are fundamental questions that would get raised again. personally, from the outside, i wouldn't see the problem in principle with that--but that is obviously a view from outside. i think that the political right would see itself as in a loose-loose situation were this to unfold.

so the situation with palestine is a giant political expedient.
nothing more, nothing less.
a coherent palestinian state presupposes the dismantling of the settlements--EVERYONE knows that these settlements are a problem--where they are, the tenuous claims they rest on, the often racist politics of the inhabitants---why it's not that different from the american west of the late 19th century and we all know how well that played out for the native americans. "the greater israel" is a form of "manifest destiny" which is a figleaf waved around to justify the erasure of the Other in the name of a nationalist hallucination. it is the pathology of nation at its most appalling.

all this is easy to say: but i havent any idea how one would go about addressing the problem of the settlements--which are STILL BEING BUILT. and so long as the settlements are STILL BEING BUILT, israel has **no**credibility as a negotiating partner--it is simply a brutal colonial occupation force that reaps what it sows in terms of violence.

but the issue of the settlements has to be moved into the center of the negociations--and the americans have to force this question--that this is **the**problem is no mystery. maybe a solution could be arrived at through negotiations. maybe a multinational force could be formed which included significant israeli co-operation to evacuate the settlements. but ehy have to go--they should not exist at all--they were, are and will remain illegal. their logic is annexation and it appears that any degree of brutalization of the palestinians is just OK as a consequence of this---they are the source of the cycle of occupation, the cause for why it is as it is. they have to go.

and they are sorta outside the israeli control, they are sorta outside in the way that any officially sanctioned annexation policy is, in the way that any national annexation policy is...

03-07-2008, 06:03 AM	#73 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to my mind, there is a way in which this is simple. the words are simple anyway. by this point, all slogans concerning israel's "right to exist" are nothing more than political slogans. they speak to alienation and a form of nostalgia for a life without colonial occupation. they are rhetorical devices. you know this. i know this. everyone fucking knows this. by this point, it is obvious that if israel were to begin making serious moves toward ending the occupation that the frame of reference folk like to throw around as continuous since 1948 even though nothing is continuous since 1948 least of all israel itself, which is a regional military superpower in 2008 which is surely was not in 1948, but hey no mater, folk like to play historian when it is convenient for them, but they don't like to think too much when they do it. if you cant distinguish discontinuities and continuities then maybe playing historian is too much for you and you should simply watch more tv. so the geo-political situation seems a variable not a fixed parameter. the slogans of hamas etc. are slogans. bargaining chips. israel could negociate seriously, i think they would find MORE THAN willing partners in it because if you imagine that ANYONE wins in the present degrading situation, you're delusional. well except for one thing. the problem comrades, is the settlements. the problems that follow from this: a. they are centers of extreme right politics. likud needs the far right. so like any conservative party that has to give handjobs to neofascists, this has consequences. [[edit: i think the krach party, for example, is a neofascist organization.]] b. i dont think the right has the stomach for what would be required to remove the settlements, now that they are there. i dont think the right can face the prospect of a de facto civil war, what would look like a civil war, what would generate the reality and image of division within a "national community" that is central to conservative political ideology. edit: this would not only provide potentially very ugly tv footage but would also trigger a debate about what israel is inside of israel. i think that debate has already been a central feature of politics about israel--within zionism, there were multiple visions--and if you think about the range of political organizations within israel, has been a debate since 1948 as well. there are fundamental questions that would get raised again. personally, from the outside, i wouldn't see the problem in principle with that--but that is obviously a view from outside. i think that the political right would see itself as in a loose-loose situation were this to unfold. so the situation with palestine is a giant political expedient. nothing more, nothing less. a coherent palestinian state presupposes the dismantling of the settlements--EVERYONE knows that these settlements are a problem--where they are, the tenuous claims they rest on, the often racist politics of the inhabitants---why it's not that different from the american west of the late 19th century and we all know how well that played out for the native americans. "the greater israel" is a form of "manifest destiny" which is a figleaf waved around to justify the erasure of the Other in the name of a nationalist hallucination. it is the pathology of nation at its most appalling. all this is easy to say: but i havent any idea how one would go about addressing the problem of the settlements--which are STILL BEING BUILT. and so long as the settlements are STILL BEING BUILT, israel has nocredibility as a negotiating partner--it is simply a brutal colonial occupation force that reaps what it sows in terms of violence. but the issue of the settlements has to be moved into the center of the negociations--and the americans have to force this question--that this is theproblem is no mystery. maybe a solution could be arrived at through negotiations. maybe a multinational force could be formed which included significant israeli co-operation to evacuate the settlements. but ehy have to go--they should not exist at all--they were, are and will remain illegal. their logic is annexation and it appears that any degree of brutalization of the palestinians is just OK as a consequence of this---they are the source of the cycle of occupation, the cause for why it is as it is. they have to go. and they are sorta outside the israeli control, they are sorta outside in the way that any officially sanctioned annexation policy is, in the way that any national annexation policy is... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-07-2008 at 06:34 AM..