Israel to World: "Suck It."

btw shakey - keep in mind that this kind of "particular range of motivations - ideology, mental imbalance, social pressures" is odious when used to contextualize, eg, someone like dylan roof. worth thinking about why you'd want to attribute stabbing a child to something beyond ideology unless it's to somehow mediate or excuse said hate.

re: these particular stabbing incidents - I think identifying any specific motivating factor (such as an ideology of hate) is liable to be more complex than that. Obviously anyone who stabs a child is disturbed. The degree to which the particular range of motivations - ideology, mental imbalance, social pressures - can be separated out is never clear-cut. This was not a military operation where someone was following orders (or at least I don't think it was).

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:43 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My understanding is that there were calls for a "stabbing intifada." But these things get very murky in the era of social media/internet-inspired attacks. If some imam delivers a sermon calling for stabbings, and then a bunch of randoms watch a youtube video of it and carry out the attacks, are they "following orders"? Are they lone wolf copycats?

this kind of "particular range of motivations - ideology, mental imbalance, social pressures" is odious when used to contextualize, eg, someone like dylan roof.

it's not odious, it's essential!

curious if any of you read this speech, what you think:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9568145/jerusalem-israel-palestine-danny-seidemann

is odious when used to contextualize, eg, someone like dylan roof

disagree w this completely but whatevs. human psychology is not some clearly delineated and compartmentalized structure.

like to what degree a murderer is motivated by just having a shitty day vs. being raised in a household of racists vs. the easy availability of weaponry vs. underlying psych condition like depression/schizophrenia/whatever vs. following orders vs. being goaded into it by peers is never easily separable - it's always some combination of those things

I'm pretty sure tons of innocents died in the Jewish uprisings in 66 and onward. Also, you can't both say that the Palestinians have it much easier than the Jews ever did, and that the Jews had just as much ability to fight back as Palestinians does today. Those two things are related.

i don't really understand what yr saying. palestinians do have it much easier than many Jews did under Muslim and Christian rule, and those Jews had the ability to knife innocent civilians to make their displeasure known and they didn't. the only way those two things are related is that palestinians have so much more autonomy now that some representations (like hamas) don't even have to make do w/ knives - they have a military and rockets as well.

and they didn't

your certainty on this point is a bit baffling

I don't know that some individual at some pt didn't stab an innocent. However I do know that there has never been a jewish political movement or theological one that excused sanctioned or championed the stabbing of innocents as an appropriate path to political liberation.

ok that makes more sense. the latter is totally different from the former

Just to reiterate (sorry) you're not blaming the Holocaust on Muslims, right?

x-post: I don't think that's true either, btw. The bible is full of depictions of killings of innocents, Roman civilians were killed during ancient uprisings, civilians were killed during violence in the fourties, and orthodox terrorists have attacked and killed Palestinians recently. Right?

I don't really get the point? Is it exclusively stabbing that is bad, as opposed to bombings? Or do you just mean during the diaspora? Because then I'd probably point to the difference between living in diaspora and living under occupation.

I will encounter that quote a thousand times from anti-semites, who will claim that Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews - Netanyahu himself said so! Very frustrating.

Frederik there's no equivalent in Jewish ideological/theological history to things like jihad or clerics advocating the random murder of innocent civilians

Fred, the point is that when looking to understand the motivations behind someone stabbing (or bombing) an innocent civilian, there are many people who will explain it within the context of deprivation, frustration, hopelessness, etc. This should be self-evidently bullshit - one might steal bread because they are hungry, or attack a policeman, or wage an insurrection against an army. But killing an innocent civilian - and to make it more dramatic, a child or an elderly person - and to do it explicitly because of their identity is not a function of desperation or hopelessness but one of hate + bigotry. Generally I would think this is obvious but over the last two weeks I've seen plenty of otherwise sober-minded people explain the murder of an innocent as a response to the occupation. This of course also ignores a long pre-occupation history of stabbing Jews (cf the newspaper I posted above).

dowd, I certainly do not blame the Muslims for the Holocaust. I do think that some Arabs (and the leader of Palestinian Arabs at the time) supported the Nazi's genocide, and I think they did so for the same reason that some Palestinians stab Jewish children today. Because they hate Jews.

your compartmentalization of possible motivations is suspect bro

That's cool, Mordy - not in the mood for an argument, anyway. Also, Mets to win tonight? Should be good.

Shakey, maybe think about it like this - what is the operative motive? If you're hungry, and you don't hate anyone, you steal and eat some bread. If you're hungry and you hate somebody, maybe you stab them and then eat their bread. When we ask why you stabbed them, you might say it's because you were hungry and maybe if you weren't hungry you wouldn't have stabbed them, but hunger isn't what made you stab them. The hatred is.

maybe think about it like this - my life sucks and the lives of everyone around me sucks. why does it suck? well everyone around me says it's cuz the Jews are oppressing us. stupid Jews. what can I do about it? pretty much nothing. man this makes me angry and full of rage and helplessness, so angry I'll do pretty much anything. some guys I know try to kill as many Jews as possible, maybe that's a good idea. hey there's a Jew now! gonna stab

now I feel like we're in a bad theater class now

sure - hatred is always justified by blaming a particular group for your problems. even the nazis had gripes about the jews (and in particular blamed them for german defeat during ww1). everyone has problems in their lives. if your solution to stopping hate-inspired murders is to make the murderers life perfect -- you're going to be really frustrated.

like if you think ending the occupation is going to end jew hatred in the arab world you're living in a fantasy. cf jew hatred + anti-jewish violence in the arab world predates the formation of israel. cf jew hatred exists throughout the entire arab world, not just among palestinians in israel.

idk if perfection is required, "less shitty" would be a good starting point

xp

jew hatred + anti-jewish violence in the arab world predates the formation of israel

sure it does, but it's also gotten way worse since the formation of Israel, and Israel's actions are partly the reason for that.

a good starting point for what? it won't end jew hatred because jew hatred exists independently of the occupation. in fact i'd argue that the occupation exists because of jew hatred, not vice-versa.

xp gotten a lot worse? i disagree. jews in the middle east are safer now than they ever were before the formation of israel. maybe the hatred is worse (i doubt it) but arab ability to act on that hatred is much much less

While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: “The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”17

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to recognize Muhammad as their Prophet, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled. In 627, Muhammad’s followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.18

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. “They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God’s signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors” (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.19

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands lived in relative peace and thrived culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results. On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.20

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.21

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).22

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.23

for improving the lives of other people and reducing tensions?

idk it's so tiresome having you point out how you think one side (which happens to be your side) is moral and rational while the other side is full of amoral irrational hate-filled ideologues. it's just weird, such a blind spot, and so scrupulously maintained.

yes I have read Bernard Lewis

i don't understand - you want me to throw a bone to equivocation bc then it'll satisfy your need to blame everyone equally? israelis as well as palestinians have done terrible things and bear responsibility for the current status quo in Israel and the territories. does that mean that jew hate in the arab world is the fault of israel? no, that's historically inaccurate.

israelis as well as palestinians have done terrible things and bear responsibility for the current status quo in Israel and the territories. does that mean that jew hate in the arab world is the fault of israel? no, that's historically inaccurate.

exactly! was that so hard

no, it was very easy bc it was the kind of thing that stupid people say to make them sound fair and thoughtful

netanyahu could not have been clearer that there will never be peace ever. saying the holocaust was the palestinians' idea is just wild.

no, it was very easy bc it was the kind of thing that stupid people say to make them sound fair and thoughtful

why I do think I've just been insulted. it does is something I take as self-evident, but it often gets lost in overheated rhetoric, so bears repeating or at least acknowledging imo.

I used to be much more hopeful about the chance of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I've come to believe that the problem is that there are two competing ideological narratives that cannot coexist. Specifically, for the sake of accuracy, the dominant narrative of the Palestinian nationalist movement is the primary impediment in that it is inherently a maximalist exclusionary ideology. Its foundational claim - that the Israelis are European colonists that need to leave 'Arab Palestine' - is not just false, but by its existence leaves no room for the Israeli claim of a Jewish State in the Levant. That's why the Palestinian leadership has never been able to sign a deal with any PM. I've also come to believe that without this tension of resistance against the Jewish State the Palestinian identity cannot even function. It becomes subsumed into a more general Arab Islamic identity. Its entire context is as resistance to Jews. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of wonderful human beings that just want to live their lives, who have legitimate grievances, etc. The central grievance of Palestinian nationalism cannot compromise by definition. No amount of conflict resolution can change that. I'm sorry if this is a bummer to hear but I feel pretty pessimistic about the entire thing. If it makes it easier to hear if I say that the Israeli identity is also maximalist and exclusionary and therefore equally to blame, then sub that in where you feel it belongs.

'Equally to blame'? So you also think that Israeli identity doesn't exist outside of resistance to Palestinian state?

What do you think the Israeli dominant narrative is? (x-post)

Correct, the ideology regarding a Jewish return to Israel existed for ~2,000 years before the establishment of the State of Israel.

I think the Israeli dominant narrative is "Israel is the holy land where we had a Temple and a sovereign nation before it was destroyed. We were in exile for 2,000 years and returned to the land to reestablish our State." I think there are also elements of "We suffered in exile and needed a sovereign State to protect ourselves."

Oh - Fred I misunderstood. No, I do think the Israeli identity exists outside of resistance. But I know how important equivocations are. So if you want to read it as "Israel identity is also maximalist and exclusionary" because otherwise you can't accept the critique, then I'm giving you permission because it's secondary imo.

How much space do you think that leaves?

(x-post)

that all sounds reasonable to me. both ideologies need to go/be reconciled but there's no signs of that happening any time soon.

xxxp

Enough for a two state solution. I don't think the Palestinian narrative can allow for two states since that suggests a legitimacy to yr colonizer.

I can perfectly 'accept' it, whatever that means, I just think it's bigoted nonsense.

Bigoted how? Because you don't believe that the Palestinian identity sees itself as an indigenous people being colonized by European interlopers? Or because you think it is much more than that and that belief is secondary to something else? Or do you just use words like bigoted when you're confused and trying to shut the other person up?

It's bigoted because you're condemning a whole people to a subservient existence due to things inherent in their 'identity'.

I'm not condemning anyone to anything. I'm giving my opinion for why they can't negotiate a two state solution. I'm not a policy maker and if I was I would encourage them to return to negotiations (as Bibi has done repeatedly btw) and push them to accept two states.

But you're also saying that those negotiations would never work, ie. you're saying that Palestinians would always be an occupied people. Due to their 'identity'.

I don't know that some individual at some pt didn't stab an innocent. However I do know that there has never been a jewish political movement or theological one that excused sanctioned or championed the stabbing of innocents as an appropriate path to political liberation.

― Mordy, Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:01 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Never you say?

One particularly extreme group, perhaps a subgroup of the Zealots, was known in Latin as sicarii, meaning "violent men" or "dagger men" (sing. sicarius, possibly a morphological reanalysis), because of their policy of killing Jews opposed to their call for war against Rome. Perhaps many Zealots were sicarii simultaneously, and they may be the biryonim of the Talmud that were feared even by the Jewish sages of the Mishnah.

According to historian H.H. Ben-Sasson, the Sicarii, originally based in Galilee, "were fighting for a social revolution, while the Jerusalem Zealots placed less stress on the social aspect" and the Sicarii "never attached themselves to one particular family and never proclaimed any of their leaders king". Both groups objected to the way the priestly families were running the Temple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots_(Judea)

massive xpost

I'm saying that the reason negotiations have failed is because the Palestinian identity sees Israelis as colonialists who don't deserve any State in any of historical Palestine, so a two state compromise would undermine that identity. If negotiations succeeded I think that violence against Israelis would continue because the "true" occupation is 1948, not 1967, again because Israelis would not stop being colonizers. They would just have been effectively chased off some of the land they had originally stolen. This also explains why the withdrawal from Gaza increased militant action against Israel and didn't decrease it xp