Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 12-27-2008, 10:48 AM

i have to go, but i'll write this out quickly...maybe expand (or address logic problems, which speed does not help to preclude)...

hamas is strong in gaza for several reasons:
the occupation itself
the israeli strategy for hobbling the plo/fatah so it could turn around and claim there was no point in negociating with the palestinians because there was no party with whom to negociate (remember? this only ended with the oslo accords)
the internal corruption of plo/fatah

these are general, but are arranged in both chronological and logical order.
to my mind, then, the most basic problem is the occupation itself.

if the idea behind the present siege--which violates every understanding of human rights---was to "demonstrate" that hamas could not provide basic services. the idea, such as it was, is to undermine the legitimacy of hamas in this way.
but any nitwit can figure out that by using a siege to bring about this end, israel and the united states are in fact strengthening the position of hamas because they provide a perfectly accurate outside force on which to blame the inability to provide basic services. the israelis have cut off food supplies, they've cut of fuel supplies, they've blocked medical supplies from getting in. this is barbaric.

faced with the disaster brought about by their own policies, it now seems that the israelis are preparing to mount a military operation into gaza. great stuff--a real step forward.

let's say that there was at some previous juncture something to the idea that hamas would be undermined by governing--that there was something to the ideas that (a) holding power would moderate because it would shift the source of legitimacy away from opposition to israel to the ability to provide continuity of services---because in a contemporary capitalist context, the regular functioning of infrastructure amounts to a political argument for the legitimacy of the state and, by extension, of the ruling configuration. in the degenerate depoliticized world of the united states at the moment, you can see this relationship---when continuity of capital flows is disrupted, the continuity of service delivery becomes a problem and suddenly there's action. so it would follow that (b) hamas would be in a far more vulnerable position were it allowed to actually govern because it would only be in that scenario that problems of continuity would be attributable to it. now, such problems are direct extensions of occupation, of siege.

behind this is another perfectly obvious point---the motor rounds and rockets that have been fired at israel since the cease-fire lapsed on the 19th are a RESULT of the siege itself.

from which follows a question or two--what exactly has this "strategy" accomplished? by way of trying to starve out thousands upon thousands of civilians, the israelis have insured that hamas remains both militant and legitimate. if hamas is internally weak in gaza, the israelis have propped it up.

and if you imagine that this strategy, such as it is, is a response to violence directed at israel, it's result has been more violence, a perpetuation of the logic of violence, because a siege IS violence--it is an appalling type of violence--it is a continuous violence based on attrition.

this kind of violence undermines the credibility of israel itself. it makes israel look like a brutal colonial force--which it is. it erodes ANY claims israel might have to a moral high ground in this conflict. it is a very very bad situation for israel, which stands to loose in any number of ways should this persist.

and mounting a large-scale military operation against a civilian population weakened after 18 months of siege is NOT a sane way to "resolve" the problem.

in fact, this is such a problematic action that i cannot imagine even the most hardline american likud supporter not wondering if there's an entirely different way to approach gaza simply because this is a foul type of disaster, a gift that keeps on giving, one that produces entirely the opposite effects as were built into it in the first place. israel is LESS safe because of this, israel is MORE isolated because of it.

12-27-2008, 10:48 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have to go, but i'll write this out quickly...maybe expand (or address logic problems, which speed does not help to preclude)... hamas is strong in gaza for several reasons: the occupation itself the israeli strategy for hobbling the plo/fatah so it could turn around and claim there was no point in negociating with the palestinians because there was no party with whom to negociate (remember? this only ended with the oslo accords) the internal corruption of plo/fatah these are general, but are arranged in both chronological and logical order. to my mind, then, the most basic problem is the occupation itself. if the idea behind the present siege--which violates every understanding of human rights---was to "demonstrate" that hamas could not provide basic services. the idea, such as it was, is to undermine the legitimacy of hamas in this way. but any nitwit can figure out that by using a siege to bring about this end, israel and the united states are in fact strengthening the position of hamas because they provide a perfectly accurate outside force on which to blame the inability to provide basic services. the israelis have cut off food supplies, they've cut of fuel supplies, they've blocked medical supplies from getting in. this is barbaric. faced with the disaster brought about by their own policies, it now seems that the israelis are preparing to mount a military operation into gaza. great stuff--a real step forward. let's say that there was at some previous juncture something to the idea that hamas would be undermined by governing--that there was something to the ideas that (a) holding power would moderate because it would shift the source of legitimacy away from opposition to israel to the ability to provide continuity of services---because in a contemporary capitalist context, the regular functioning of infrastructure amounts to a political argument for the legitimacy of the state and, by extension, of the ruling configuration. in the degenerate depoliticized world of the united states at the moment, you can see this relationship---when continuity of capital flows is disrupted, the continuity of service delivery becomes a problem and suddenly there's action. so it would follow that (b) hamas would be in a far more vulnerable position were it allowed to actually govern because it would only be in that scenario that problems of continuity would be attributable to it. now, such problems are direct extensions of occupation, of siege. behind this is another perfectly obvious point---the motor rounds and rockets that have been fired at israel since the cease-fire lapsed on the 19th are a RESULT of the siege itself. from which follows a question or two--what exactly has this "strategy" accomplished? by way of trying to starve out thousands upon thousands of civilians, the israelis have insured that hamas remains both militant and legitimate. if hamas is internally weak in gaza, the israelis have propped it up. and if you imagine that this strategy, such as it is, is a response to violence directed at israel, it's result has been more violence, a perpetuation of the logic of violence, because a siege IS violence--it is an appalling type of violence--it is a continuous violence based on attrition. this kind of violence undermines the credibility of israel itself. it makes israel look like a brutal colonial force--which it is. it erodes ANY claims israel might have to a moral high ground in this conflict. it is a very very bad situation for israel, which stands to loose in any number of ways should this persist. and mounting a large-scale military operation against a civilian population weakened after 18 months of siege is NOT a sane way to "resolve" the problem. in fact, this is such a problematic action that i cannot imagine even the most hardline american likud supporter not wondering if there's an entirely different way to approach gaza simply because this is a foul type of disaster, a gift that keeps on giving, one that produces entirely the opposite effects as were built into it in the first place. israel is LESS safe because of this, israel is MORE isolated because of it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-27-2008 at 10:50 AM..