Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 01-08-2009, 05:12 AM

asaris---agreed on the nation-state matter--i haven't brought that question into this thread, though, because it is shaped by other dynamics. this is a nationalist conflict. this is a demonstration of why nationalism is a pathology.

where it impacts on this situation in gaza is at a remove--i disagree entirely with loquitor's statement above that the past does not matter. this present is entirely a function of the past, it is a result of thinking in terms shaped by it and represents the extreme difficulty of breaking with the past. i don't see the logic of winning and losing as relevant here--but the logic of the past is built around that. i don't see anyone winning anything here.

what i do see from the folk who support the israeli action is a whole lot of denial: denial of the post 67 reality, which you can see in the analogies to individuals (if someone attacked my sister...)----which erases both the fact of occupation, it's trajectories, it's implications AND the radical asymtery of the conflict itself--a regional military superpower uses its military capabilities against a non-state paramilitary the edges of which blur into a civilian population that is trapped in place by a siege---in a broader context shaped by 40 years of colonial occupation in the context of which the primary strategy has been to keep the palestinian population fragmented politically and subject more generally. none of the logics internal to occupation ave produced the stated objectives---pulverizing the plo did not produce more peace--it produced hamas---claims to want peace have been undermined by the settlement program, which continues in the west bank to be expanded, despite, well, everything. the logic of this history is such that even gestures that could and should have opened onto something else like the pullout from gaza have produced nothing like the stated objectives.

the problem is the entire logic of occupation.

within that, you have the ideological limitations that follow from viewing this history through the viewpoint of the israeli right--and in this thread every last one of the posts which support israel's action in gaza reproduce that logic---without even qualifying it, without situating it--as if the right and israel as a whole are identical--which is nonsense---as if the right represents therefore the only perspective---so you are either for israel so defined or you are for hamas---the ideology itself prevents more complicated thinking, prevents consideration of any alternative but the existing alternative. us/them, win/lose---40 years of this have produced nothing but death, suffering, instability--and more death, more suffering, more instability is being produced now---the effect of conflating the viewpoint of the israeli right with israel as a whole is, even in this thread is to generate the illusion that nothing else is possible. what's startling is that this logic is not understood as replicating the problem that has resulted in decisions like the 06 refusal to recognize the gaza election results. it is that logic itself which has created this situation, which is shaping it, which will do nothing but create more such situations.

the americans have long hung their hat on this same logic, for the same reasons---i think the calculation was that israel could "win" following on the rightwing way of viewing the situation--and policy has been framed by this same conflation--that the logic espoused by likud, particularly when in coalition with the extreme right, that represents israel as a whole. this cold war relic has made it difficult for the americans to actually change course: it has compromised their relation to any peace process. the americans threw the dice in this respect and will find themselves losing face if the situation between israel and palestine is internationalized---which i think it must be at this point. so an internationalization of this conflict will be a first, obvious indication of the decline of american hegemony, such as it has been---and so i would not be surprised to find the next administration opposed to this direction---but i see no way out.

there are alternative logics within israel--thousands upon thousands of folk have worked to build other types of community, to link palestinians and israelis through local programs--the political viewpoint of the israeli left offers another way of thinking about the conflict, one relatively devoid of racism, one relatively devoid of this asinine idea that this is a conflict between religions or that concessions in the context of colonialism represent a threat to israel as a state.

the existence of israel is not at stake. israel is a fact. that is why thinking about gaza in the longer-term context of post 67 history is far more useful than is thinking about it in terms of a history that runs back to 1947--it is the paranoid and useless claim that israel's existence is threatened that drops out, and it is that paranoid and useless claim that underpins the marketing of rightwing israeli political views in the united states as if they represented the whole of israel, the only option, the only way. if you assume that rightwing politics are the only option, and buy the line that the existence of israel is at stake, to abandon or question rightwing policies is then to place the existence of israel at peril. this circular thinking benefits only the right. no-one else, anywhere.

even in the states, there are alternatives--it is entirely possible to gather information about what has been happening on the ground in the west bank and gaza. it is entirely possible to read descriptions from israelis and palestinians of the facts about occupation, the facts about settlements, the facts about responsibility. it has been entirely possible to find out quite alot about what 18 months of siege has meant for gaza.

the fundamental choice that separates folk who support this action and those who do not is that the folk who support it seem unable or unwilling to look at this reality on the ground. the reason i keep pointing to the democracy now transcript i posted earlier is that this distinction--knowing what's been happening as over against operating with a reductive counter-narrative that references the same place names without knowing anything about them, that substitutes rightwing mythology for the grain of information--that relation repeats in it.

there should be an immediate cease fire in gaza monitored by an international peacekeeping force. while the quartet is far from perfect, it's initiatives should be placed at the center of a new peace process--which presupposes that the americans get out of the fucking way and start acting in good faith--which they have not done. by that i mean the obama administration is in a position to see the non-policies toward the israli right enacted (if that's the word) by the bush people as yet another dimension of conservative failure and to abandon them--and those policies are the logical extension of american policy toward israel since 1967, so in abandoning them, it would break with this horrific logic that has lead to nothing but violence and death on all sides.

===========================

today's gaza casualty count:

edit: 707 killed, over 3100 injured.

there are conflicting reports about the adequacy of medial supplies, the consistency of electricity etc,.
the situation remains most dire for the population of gaza.

01-08-2009, 05:12 AM	#127 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	asaris---agreed on the nation-state matter--i haven't brought that question into this thread, though, because it is shaped by other dynamics. this is a nationalist conflict. this is a demonstration of why nationalism is a pathology. where it impacts on this situation in gaza is at a remove--i disagree entirely with loquitor's statement above that the past does not matter. this present is entirely a function of the past, it is a result of thinking in terms shaped by it and represents the extreme difficulty of breaking with the past. i don't see the logic of winning and losing as relevant here--but the logic of the past is built around that. i don't see anyone winning anything here. what i do see from the folk who support the israeli action is a whole lot of denial: denial of the post 67 reality, which you can see in the analogies to individuals (if someone attacked my sister...)----which erases both the fact of occupation, it's trajectories, it's implications AND the radical asymtery of the conflict itself--a regional military superpower uses its military capabilities against a non-state paramilitary the edges of which blur into a civilian population that is trapped in place by a siege---in a broader context shaped by 40 years of colonial occupation in the context of which the primary strategy has been to keep the palestinian population fragmented politically and subject more generally. none of the logics internal to occupation ave produced the stated objectives---pulverizing the plo did not produce more peace--it produced hamas---claims to want peace have been undermined by the settlement program, which continues in the west bank to be expanded, despite, well, everything. the logic of this history is such that even gestures that could and should have opened onto something else like the pullout from gaza have produced nothing like the stated objectives. the problem is the entire logic of occupation. within that, you have the ideological limitations that follow from viewing this history through the viewpoint of the israeli right--and in this thread every last one of the posts which support israel's action in gaza reproduce that logic---without even qualifying it, without situating it--as if the right and israel as a whole are identical--which is nonsense---as if the right represents therefore the only perspective---so you are either for israel so defined or you are for hamas---the ideology itself prevents more complicated thinking, prevents consideration of any alternative but the existing alternative. us/them, win/lose---40 years of this have produced nothing but death, suffering, instability--and more death, more suffering, more instability is being produced now---the effect of conflating the viewpoint of the israeli right with israel as a whole is, even in this thread is to generate the illusion that nothing else is possible. what's startling is that this logic is not understood as replicating the problem that has resulted in decisions like the 06 refusal to recognize the gaza election results. it is that logic itself which has created this situation, which is shaping it, which will do nothing but create more such situations. the americans have long hung their hat on this same logic, for the same reasons---i think the calculation was that israel could "win" following on the rightwing way of viewing the situation--and policy has been framed by this same conflation--that the logic espoused by likud, particularly when in coalition with the extreme right, that represents israel as a whole. this cold war relic has made it difficult for the americans to actually change course: it has compromised their relation to any peace process. the americans threw the dice in this respect and will find themselves losing face if the situation between israel and palestine is internationalized---which i think it must be at this point. so an internationalization of this conflict will be a first, obvious indication of the decline of american hegemony, such as it has been---and so i would not be surprised to find the next administration opposed to this direction---but i see no way out. there are alternative logics within israel--thousands upon thousands of folk have worked to build other types of community, to link palestinians and israelis through local programs--the political viewpoint of the israeli left offers another way of thinking about the conflict, one relatively devoid of racism, one relatively devoid of this asinine idea that this is a conflict between religions or that concessions in the context of colonialism represent a threat to israel as a state. the existence of israel is not at stake. israel is a fact. that is why thinking about gaza in the longer-term context of post 67 history is far more useful than is thinking about it in terms of a history that runs back to 1947--it is the paranoid and useless claim that israel's existence is threatened that drops out, and it is that paranoid and useless claim that underpins the marketing of rightwing israeli political views in the united states as if they represented the whole of israel, the only option, the only way. if you assume that rightwing politics are the only option, and buy the line that the existence of israel is at stake, to abandon or question rightwing policies is then to place the existence of israel at peril. this circular thinking benefits only the right. no-one else, anywhere. even in the states, there are alternatives--it is entirely possible to gather information about what has been happening on the ground in the west bank and gaza. it is entirely possible to read descriptions from israelis and palestinians of the facts about occupation, the facts about settlements, the facts about responsibility. it has been entirely possible to find out quite alot about what 18 months of siege has meant for gaza. the fundamental choice that separates folk who support this action and those who do not is that the folk who support it seem unable or unwilling to look at this reality on the ground. the reason i keep pointing to the democracy now transcript i posted earlier is that this distinction--knowing what's been happening as over against operating with a reductive counter-narrative that references the same place names without knowing anything about them, that substitutes rightwing mythology for the grain of information--that relation repeats in it. there should be an immediate cease fire in gaza monitored by an international peacekeeping force. while the quartet is far from perfect, it's initiatives should be placed at the center of a new peace process--which presupposes that the americans get out of the fucking way and start acting in good faith--which they have not done. by that i mean the obama administration is in a position to see the non-policies toward the israli right enacted (if that's the word) by the bush people as yet another dimension of conservative failure and to abandon them--and those policies are the logical extension of american policy toward israel since 1967, so in abandoning them, it would break with this horrific logic that has lead to nothing but violence and death on all sides. =========================== today's gaza casualty count: edit: 707 killed, over 3100 injured. there are conflicting reports about the adequacy of medial supplies, the consistency of electricity etc,. the situation remains most dire for the population of gaza. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-08-2009 at 06:27 AM..