Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 12-28-2008, 08:39 AM

here's part of my rationale for thinking that the us/israeli response to jan 06 was a bad idea--if you look at, o i dunno, almost any us "radical" interest group from the 1970s (i am thinking in particular of the cases that manuel castells wrote about in books like "city and the grassroots") a pattern surfaces that actually gaining access to power presents oppositional groups with a real problem, one that they typically are not prepared for as their politics are oriented otherwise--this problem has to do with making the transition into acting in the context of an administrative apparatus. you're no longer outside at that point, so it makes little sense to continue pretending that you are outside---with that change comes an undercutting of the rhetoric of opposition. this lay behind my argument that it would have made far more sense had hamas been allowed to assume power in gaza. and i don't think that this initial move would have taken any options off the table---i can for example imagine easily (as i am sure you can) a scenario in which we collectively would land in this sport anyway, but from a different origin---and others in which things could look very different at this point.

a second question has to do with political language, but from a different angle--if the above is basically a footnote that i'd stick underneath the claims about about the moderating effects of holding actual power, this is more about what claims like "israel has no right to exist" actually do. i see it as a positioning move. if fatah is weak for other reasons and you want to run against that organization, you need to stake out a position in relation to them rhetorically--i see the opposition to israel as a whole to be such a positioning move.

and i see the siege as freezing hamas in that rhetorical space, as enabling hamas to distance itself from power and as if anything legitimating hamas by enabling it to point to the siege to explain everything that's gone south in gaza over the past 18 months. in other words, it is (as i've said) an entirely self-defeating policy.

where i really disagree with you is in putting responsibility for this on the people of gaza--particularly not 18 months into a siege at the point where the shit is about to hit the fan, by all appearances. first because it obviates the consequences of the siege itself---which it does not take a rocket science to see as solidifying and intensifying opposition to israel rather than the opposite, and solidifying support for hamas at the same time. second, i thought that elections were supposed to be a good thing, and that the expression of the will of the people an important act, something that should be respected. what you're suggesting---i think---is that it's ok for the united states and israel to react to the elections in gaza by saying WRONG ANSWER.

by that logic, you'd have half expected an international embargo of the united states in 2004 after bush was elected a second time. WRONG ANSWER. if it's legit in the case of gaza, it'd have been legit then. in the way it was "legit" in 1972 chile. that kind of thing. it's a strange position to adopt.

12-28-2008, 08:39 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here's part of my rationale for thinking that the us/israeli response to jan 06 was a bad idea--if you look at, o i dunno, almost any us "radical" interest group from the 1970s (i am thinking in particular of the cases that manuel castells wrote about in books like "city and the grassroots") a pattern surfaces that actually gaining access to power presents oppositional groups with a real problem, one that they typically are not prepared for as their politics are oriented otherwise--this problem has to do with making the transition into acting in the context of an administrative apparatus. you're no longer outside at that point, so it makes little sense to continue pretending that you are outside---with that change comes an undercutting of the rhetoric of opposition. this lay behind my argument that it would have made far more sense had hamas been allowed to assume power in gaza. and i don't think that this initial move would have taken any options off the table---i can for example imagine easily (as i am sure you can) a scenario in which we collectively would land in this sport anyway, but from a different origin---and others in which things could look very different at this point. a second question has to do with political language, but from a different angle--if the above is basically a footnote that i'd stick underneath the claims about about the moderating effects of holding actual power, this is more about what claims like "israel has no right to exist" actually do. i see it as a positioning move. if fatah is weak for other reasons and you want to run against that organization, you need to stake out a position in relation to them rhetorically--i see the opposition to israel as a whole to be such a positioning move. and i see the siege as freezing hamas in that rhetorical space, as enabling hamas to distance itself from power and as if anything legitimating hamas by enabling it to point to the siege to explain everything that's gone south in gaza over the past 18 months. in other words, it is (as i've said) an entirely self-defeating policy. where i really disagree with you is in putting responsibility for this on the people of gaza--particularly not 18 months into a siege at the point where the shit is about to hit the fan, by all appearances. first because it obviates the consequences of the siege itself---which it does not take a rocket science to see as solidifying and intensifying opposition to israel rather than the opposite, and solidifying support for hamas at the same time. second, i thought that elections were supposed to be a good thing, and that the expression of the will of the people an important act, something that should be respected. what you're suggesting---i think---is that it's ok for the united states and israel to react to the elections in gaza by saying WRONG ANSWER. by that logic, you'd have half expected an international embargo of the united states in 2004 after bush was elected a second time. WRONG ANSWER. if it's legit in the case of gaza, it'd have been legit then. in the way it was "legit" in 1972 chile. that kind of thing. it's a strange position to adopt. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite