Israel to World: "Suck It."

I am just making the case that Hamas responded to that event specifically (and the expulsions from Sheikh Jarrah) when it decided to launch hundreds of rockets into Israel.

― Van Horn Street, Friday, 14 May 2021 bookmarkflaglink

How should Palestinians respond to this?

why don't they suggest some kind of boycott or stage a non-violent protest at the border or something who could object to that

I don’t think this avenue is particularly useful. It’s not up to Palestinians to fix the situation. They’ve done everything they can and been crushed. VHS as I read him was asserting that the rockets were specifically in retaliation for Al Aqsa rather than anything before, or a cumulative response. I’m not sure why that’s an important distinction. Surely it could be, and almost certainly is, both.

otm

For me it feels gross to call Israel a “settler colony“ and it’s depressing how a big part of the (twitter) left is seemingly ok with it

Israel is a settler colony

its existence as a consequence of European antisemitism makes it unique but that doesn't change what it is or how it works. the founders were quite explicit about this

So that’s the Gaza offices of Associated Press and Al Jazeera being told they’re about to be bombed.

— Elvis Buñuelo (@Mr_Considerate) May 15, 2021

BREAKING: Al Jazeera forced to broadcast destruction of its own media offices in Gaza, along with all equipment left inside

pic.twitter.com/wwqOk6km7H

— Double Down News (@DoubleDownNews) May 15, 2021

w-ow

just read this in the Guardian: "Palestinian fatalities from strikes on Gaza stand at more than 132, including 32 children."

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/15/israel-gaza-west-bank-rockets-jerusalem-warplanes)

Who should we be morally equating Israel to?

assuming that's a rhetorical question all states & companies providing weapons & support are responsible including the countries most or all of us are typing from. "as bad as..." is a hopeless dead end

yes, I wasn't actually asking for comparisons, rather pushing back against VHS's unhelpful invocation of ISIS and Boko Haram as Hamas's moral equivalents, whatever that means

Far right jihadists who use terrorism and war as a tactic, I believe the moral equivalent is there. Another moral equivalent would be IDF and the right wing governement of Israel, who just happened to be better armed, but seek just as much as Hamas the extermination of the other people.

you’d think the purposeful targeting of foreign media might cause the u.s. to step in but noooo

the value of these comparisons is in the potential response they would warrant or provoke were they to be taken seriously and I've tried to exploit this myself by e.g. calling trump fans nazis. especially considering how expansively "hamas" is being defined by the state of israel and in our media we don't need comparisons to some of the worst people in the world

well, we have now scolded them so they should stop now xp

We have communicated directly to the Israelis that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility.

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) May 15, 2021

can we not with the fucking "jihadism" and "terrorism" please this the language of empire

On reading VHS's reasonable response, I think my take is that I don't personally find "moral equivalency" all that helpful as a concept. IMO too many political arguments proceed along these kinds of analogical lines and end up being about an abstract principle (e.g., the use of "terror" which is distinct from "war") instead of the local details.

OTOH I also call trump fans and other fascists nazis so idk

you’d think the purposeful targeting of foreign media might cause the u.s. to step in but noooo

Doesn't this happen every time Israel decides to bomb Gaza? I mean the purposeful targeting of foreign media not the US stepping in (as if).

2014:

17 journalists were killed in the conflict,[561][562] of which five were off-duty and two (from Associated Press) were covering a bomb disposal team's efforts to defuse an unexploded Israeli artillery shell when it exploded.[563][564] In several cases, the journalists were killed while having markings distinguishing them as press on their vehicles or clothing.[565][566] IDF stated that in one case it had precise information that a vehicle marked "TV" that was hit killing one alleged journalist was in military use.[567][568] Several media outlets, including the offices of Al-Jazeera, were hit. The International Federation of Journalists has condemned the attacks as "appalling murders and attacks".[569] Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law.[570] The Israeli army said it does not target journalists, and that it contacts news media "in order to advise them which areas to avoid during the conflict".[564] Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver stating that it is not responsible for their safety in Gaza, which Reporters Without Borders calls contrary to international law.[571][572][573]

can we not with the fucking "jihadism" and "terrorism" please this the language of empire

ok dude

I can quickly accept that "terrorism" is the language of empire, imposed upon a struggle for self-determination and against oppression. But don't both al-Q and ISIS self-identify as being engaged in a "jihad" which encompasses specific political, and not just theological, aims? Isn't their claim upon the concept of "jihad" as being sanctioned, even demanded, by Islam, a central piece of their ideology as political organizations? If not, I have been terribly misled.

jihad means a lot of things

right, and so... about "jihadism" then?

jihad can be that moment when you know you're going to eat the entire bag of doritos

imperial construct xp

specifically a useful way to homogenise a whole range of unconnected and frequently opposed movements and people into a single world-threatening menace in order to make preemptive violence against them seem self evidently necessary. tellingly it is now used by china and russia and syria for their purposes in the exact same way the US and its allies use it

Hamas leaders themselves use the word.

KM otm.

This isn’t about Hamas. So you guys’ parsing of the meaning of jihad is beside the point.

It’s not about ISIL or Al-Qaeda. It’s about Israel and its military occupation.

Maybe we should parse the meaning of the word “democracy”. Israel uses it about itself - that must be what Israel is!

Aimless what’s a democracy?

Because I’m starting to think I’ve been misled!!

all of these political leaders seem to be...lying!!

the point is there is no ideology of jihadism there are many people and movements engaging in what they perceive or claim to be jihad including those who have been supported by or aligned with the US at times but as soon as the label is applied they become an existential threat in need of extermination hence the readiness of oppressive regimes including israel & the US to wield it

just seen the latest expression of genocidist settler solidarity from the scum in washington. death to america

How about an ideology of islamism extremism is bad at all times no matter how the US or Israel or whoever aligns with it. And allow us to parse the difference between, say, Burma making jihadist claims about the Rohingya peoples which is obviously ridiculous and groups that clearly identify themselves as perpetrators of jihad.

no

Aimless what’s a democracy?

Whatever it denotes, few people claim the word is the exclusive property of imperialists, so the analogy to the discussion of whether "jihadism" is the language of empire is a poor one.

Uprisings against authoritarian governments generally demand the government become a "democracy". I leave it to those movements to define it for themselves, but it broadly denotes a government that allows the governed a means to choose their leaders and to participate in important governmental processes.

why is if so obviously ridiculous in the context of burma and why is it remotely necessary to do this now at all

again jihad is not "terrorism" and "extremism" and all the things these terms are supposed to imply

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that ‘jihad’, a term that can encompass both the conquest of Spain and not eating a bag of Doritos when you are meant to be fasting isn’t a useful lens to frame this, or many other issues, with. The popular meaning of the term in the media is absolutely a Western construct.

besides the point but uprisings against authoritarian governments are about a lot of things and democracy and human rights in the liberal sense are just the most internationally approved terms in which to frame them

Tweets in the London march

The demo today felt really powerful. Not only big, but very young, lines, slogans and placards largely determined by decolonial, anti-racist commitments not worn out British Trotskyism. Genuinely felt like a broad, popular force.

— Tom Gann (@Tom_Gann) May 15, 2021

jihad means a lot of things

tellingly it is now used by china and russia and syria for their purposes in the exact same way the US and its allies use it

co-option of powerful words by political organizations for their own narrow political purposes is not the exclusive province of imperialists or authoritarians.

the point is there is no ideology of jihadism

True. There are many ideologies which self-identify as jihadist and these, as you point out often conflict. The same is true of Protestantism as a theological term. There are hundreds of sects who self-identify as protestant and they differ wildly about what they believe, even when they use many of the same terms.

afaics, "jihadism" is a football which a great many political entities use for their own purposes. By stating it is the exclusive property of imperialists you are equally stating that organizations like hamas, isis, and al-Q who make strong counter-claims to their right to define the word, have been co-opted into serving the purposes of the imperialists. They'd disagree.

I would disagree with them

palestinians are reminding us that decolonization is not abstract. it is material. it is violent. it is not popular, it will be resisted and debated by the entire structures of the monstrous colonial world. and it is the only way forward, and it is the only path of life.

— #SaveSheikhJarrah (@YouKnowFargo) May 14, 2021

(xxp) Do any of those organizations use the term 'jihadism' though?

Stop. This isn’t about Aimless’ definition of jihad.

What about Left's definition?

what definition. fuck this abstract bs I'm sorry to have participated