dc:
Quote:
|
While not condoning all of Israel's actions, I gave up on the Gaza Redux thread when, IMO, it became a propaganda outlet for Hamas and the Palestinian position
|
strange, dc...i tried to present arguments that reflected a complicated and often unpleasant reality that did not avoid complexity as it were a problem.
the problems that attend narrative control--for example, the implications of where you choose to start the narrative you tell yourself (or anyone tells themselves) as problems rather than as fait accompli--a propaganda narrative would not do that. and you know it.
that the aftermath of 67 is a fundamental dividing line in the history of israel is self-evident--what distinguishes in the main the historical narratives of the israeli left from that of the right is that the left acknowledges this fact openly and attempts to think it through. the right does not. you may not be a conservative on american politics, but on israeli politics your positions are squarely on the right.
in the thread, i made an error early on in trying to force 67 as a startingpoint--but i backed away from it, particularly once i found an overview of information management strategies that were at play a week ago from the region. so i backed away from it because conflict over narrative functions as a clear political marker and so cannot be set up front. when i made the mistake, i was simply tired of that game--but it's the same game that is at the center of the present information war. and there's no outside of that.
in the thread, positions were countered with other positions, information with information--this is the opposite of propaganda. you know that. like everyone else, i am assembling information and shifting how i see this situation around as a do so.
not once----not once---did i offer support for hamas. i have made it as clear as i can in the context of a message board, with its compressed format--to center ALL of the claims i make on the fate that seems to be befalling the palestinian population in significant measure BECAUSE of hamas and it's actions---where i diverge from you is that i see hamas as IN ITSELF an expression of failure of policy and thinking for which the israeli right is, like it or not, disproportionately responsible.
what i did do is foreground the 18 month siege of gaza. this was and remains an ugly misguided action. it is no surprise that you do not like addressing it because it is a brutal, ineffective, misguided action. but to foreground it is simply to state the facts. the line between analytic narrative and propaganda runs straight through this--erasing facts because they are uncomfortable is not analysis--it is a falsification of reality. and *that* is propaganda. that's what it is--selling your views first, bending reality around them, excluding what is dissonant, foregrounding what fits.
because of the assymetry in force that's involved with this conflict, i have--and i acknowledge this-downplayed the missles that hamas has launched a bit--i see this as implicit in the phrase that i've used consistently--that hamas chose to play chicken with the israelis at the end of the last truce--and they fucked up by making that choice. the consequence of that decision is befalling not only hamas but the civilian population in gaza--and this is significant measure because of the siege--the borders are sealed and you know it. the civilian population cannot flee. you know that too.
there is a fundamental distinction between arguments that you do not like but cannot refute because the information is not on your side when you cannot yourself control the narrative parameters and propaganda.
i'm actually quite offended personally that you went in the direction you did in the post above.
i don't expect agreement--but i do not expect this--particularly not from you.
i'll respond to other posts later.