Israel/Palestine post 10/7 - follow-on events/thoughts as relate to other countries

Ken White's substack on the House hearing is exceptional:

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that antisemitism is on the rise in America in the wake of October 7th. It’s on the rise on college campuses. Sometimes criticism of Israel or defense of Palestinians is explicitly antisemitic, sometimes it is implicitly antisemitic, and sometimes it incorporates classic antisemitic tropes. Sometimes people of bad faith take advantage of the ambiguity. (I think some people use “from the river to the sea” that way, as a deliberately ambiguous taunt, a big brother’s back-seat ha-ha-I’m-not-touching-you, but with an implicit allusion to genocide.) I don’t blame Jews who feel under siege in America or on campus, even if I sometimes disagree with their interpretation of criticisms of Israel. Feelings are not right or wrong, and in the face of so much overt Jew-hatred, I understand a tendency to interpret ambiguous statements in the worst way possible. I think we should feel compassion and empathy for people who feel that way.

None of that is solved by pretending hard questions are easy. None of that is solved by letting demagogues and hucksters take advantage of the moment to push their agenda. None of that is solved by contributing to what America is becoming — stupider and meaner."

https://popehat.substack.com/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard

xp

It all seemed to hinge on the semantics of the term “intifada” which is definitely fraught for sure, but I think a lot of people on the Left are using it not to advocate for genocide against Jews. It is unfortunate imo that a lot of younger American leftists don’t have the most solid grasp of history and I feel like they are actually ignorant of how others interpret some of their terms and slogans.

― sarahell, Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:45 PM (fifty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Not sure what people on the left want to do with chants of "there is only one solution! Intifada revolution!" but a lot of them seem very naïve.

― felicity, Thursday, December 7, 2023 4:00 PM (forty-three minutes ago)

Would either of you mind elaborating? I guess I am one of the naive, as it's genuinely news to me that "intifada" could be interpreted in good faith to mean "genocide against Jews." Neither of the historical Palestinian intifadas could be described as genocides; if nothing else, both resulted in more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. It also has a literal meaning in Arabic, though I know literal definitions don't necessarily help in these situations (c.f. jihad).

Xp rob … akm touches on it with the “from the river to the sea” slogan part of his post

But in the hearing, the politicians were operating on the assumption that “intifada = genocide of Jews”

I wonder if Keyes caught the last few seconds of this bit from Joe Wilson

tbh, I was under the impression that Keyes was paraphrasing from the TheHill.com article he cited and got overly excited. Not that he was watching the hearing. Maybe I am wrong. It may seem like I am splitting hairs but that clip from Wilson (terrible clip btw) is talking about 2 separate incidents:

1. faculty called out by name for visibly clapping (at 4:26) an October 8 rally calling to send Jews "Go back to Moscow, Brooklyn, ____ing Berlin where you came from" and asking if any action had been taking against them.

2. a class "featuring a person who is with the terrorist organization PFLF"

So if that's what he is referring to, no there were not "Professors called out by name and saying they are members of terrorist organizations."

My point overall is collapsing facts into inflammatory rumors on subjects that actually have potential criminal and violent repercussions for people in the US is dangerous and not helpful. Why do that. The murderer of the little Palestinian boy in Illinois said he was "angry" at what he saw on the news.

I don’t think “intifada” is problematic in the way people are utilizing it. This again seems like a case where the rhetoric of an international solidarity movement against occupation and genocide is being unnecessarily policed because it calls out the lie at the heart of so-called “democracies” like Israel and the US, but that’s just my take.

xpost to sarahell

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:28 PM bookmarkflaglink

table, and if people disagree with your take? We had this discussion a few months back where you did not support the striking WGA writers because you don't watch tv, but you supported the striking Starbucks workers because .... I guess you drink coffee? Just surprised you talk about solidarity when so many of your views seem to end at the limits of your own self interest. As I said, I don't dislike you, but I think your empathy is highly selective, which is hard to square with your stated deontological morality. And people have been telling you this for a while.

You never returned to respond to people who thought this post of yours regarding imagery of a bulldozer on October 7, 2023 was troubling:

I think destroying a border wall unjustly keeping people from land that is as much theirs as anyone else’s is an act of liberation, not an act of terror.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Wednesday, November 8, 2023 9:41 AM bookmarkflaglink

So that can be your view. But can you accept that your view is an extreme outlier that does not serve the student body at large - and is even quite offensive - and potentially emboldens people to take action that is harmful. Perhaps you can recognize you are not the one affects, and make room for the voices, of those who are most immediately affected? And perhaps not center your own experience so exclusively and acting like you are the aggrieved person if people disagree with you on this point?

I don’t think “intifada” is problematic in the way people are utilizing it. This again seems like a case where the rhetoric of an international solidarity movement against occupation and genocide is being unnecessarily policed because it calls out the lie at the heart of so-called “democracies” like Israel and the US, but that’s just my take.

xpost to sarahell

a friend's sister recently was told by some young leftists who work for her (she doesn't work in a political org btw!) they didn't feel comfortable working under her bc she's jewish, considering the current climate. this is someone who isn't out there waving Israeli flags, she just...happens to be jewish.

I guess it depends on what the goals are in using that language… if you want to gain sympathy from a broader audience, one who includes people who associate that language with eradicating Jews from the “Holy Land” then my thought would be to “use other words please”… if you don’t gaf about that, then nbd I guess??

i'm not noting it to damn leftists, considering i'm vv left, but that jewish people who have no allegiance to israel and no love for its policies or leadership are getting it from folks who might like to use it as an excuse to engage in a bit of the ol' not-so-veiled antisemitism.

That said, I encourage everyone to read that article about the Student group because it also speaks to stuff that T and xyzzz have been posting about in terms of authorities cracking down on Palestinian supporters. And perhaps think about that in terms of the hearing where the focus was solely on the antisemitism and anti-Israel part of the conflict

The focus of the hearing was not solely that. Did you watch it?

a friend's sister recently was told by some young leftists who work for her (she doesn't work in a political org btw!) they didn't feel comfortable working under her bc she's jewish, considering the current climate. this is someone who isn't out there waving Israeli flags, she just...happens to be jewish.

Those people are racists! (that was to omar)

re: intifada

The quote (popehat's; sorry thread is moving around a lot) about river/sea is well put and at this point I would advise activists against using it, but I can't get there with intifada (without further info at any rate; not that I, a non-Palestinian, would go around chanting about it anyway). For me it's nonsensical to have basic historical facts available and claim the word means genocide: https://www.britannica.com/topic/intifada.

I also feel kind of weary about these debates, too reminiscent of arguments over "defund the police" where the semantics, as you said sarahell, start to blot out the urgent issue at hand. Move on and find a better slogan is probably the wise tactical choice. But I also get frustrated with constantly having to concede things because the right is adept at capturing them, and I think there is something at stake at allowing popular Palestinian resistance, even violent resistance, to be entirely reframed as a campaign of antisemitic genocide.

I just want to commend gyac for her posts in this thread.

All Israelis and many Jews associate "intifada" with the numerous deliberate massacres of civilians that occurred in the second intifada, which is the most recent widespread use of the term intifada in modern western memory, a fact that any activist for Palestine who didn't just join he cause on 10/8 obviously knows. The idea that using that term immediately after the largest massacre of Israeli civilians in history isn't intended to invoke terrorism against civilians is completely absurd and laughable, even if it's not intended to invoke genocide (which I think is an exaggeration).

"Intifada just means shaking off" is gaslighting. It would be like saying "Nakba just means catastrophe."

The focus of the hearing was not solely that. Did you watch it?

I just want to commend gyac for her posts in this thread.

I think the WSJ opinion piece JiC posted over in Hey Jews is worth posting here

https://archive.ph/1tn2C

"Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10%, thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed."

I mean, on some level that's just the nature of student activists. That's fine. I didn't know shit about Tibet when I protested for Tibet other than whatever talking points were in the trainings I went to. I'm sure a lot of the people chanting don't know what they are invoking, but there are also people organizing those chants and creating those materials and leading those trainings, and those people do know what they are invoking.

The focus of the hearing was not solely that. Did you watch it?

what was the name of the hearing? I can't seem to find it anywhere but absolutely everything, including CSPAN, calls it a hearing on antisemitism

https://www.c-span.org/video/?532147-1/university-presidents-testify-college-campus-antisemitism-part-1

on some level that's just the nature of student activists. That's fine. I didn't know shit about Tibet when I protested for Tibet other than whatever talking points were in the trainings I went to.

i mean, I guess... but actualy no, it's not fine. Like, cmon, spend a little time educating yourself (not you specifically).

and the reason it's not really fine is because of your follow on point: "there are also people organizing those chants and creating those materials and leading those trainings, and those people do know what they are invoking."

spend a little time finding out who is running the 'trainings' you go to. Maybe this is because I was no student activist. I worked with Amnesty International and that was it. I am deeply suspicious of 'trainings'.

like that just sounds like willingly signing yourself up for brainwashing. wtf do I know I am and old GenX and apparently we are the worst people on earth now.

My point is really less about the students who don't know stuff and more about the educated people who do know what they are saying. Because I think the idea that "people mean different things by what they are chanting" kind of belies the way activism and organizing actually works and the way communication works.

The coverage focused on that part. I imagine a lot of people also are responding based on that framing.
― sarahell, Thursday, December 7, 2023 2:25 PM bookmarkflaglink

It's fine if you watched the hearing or didn't watch the hearing. I did. So if you want to focus on the coverage of the hearing, feel free.

Just please don't argue here about what the hearing "focused" on if you did not watch it.

“Specifically, I did not see any Congresspeople calling Professors "terrorists." Perhaps Keyes can point to who said that in the hearing.”

Yeah I turned the hearing on and immediately heard Joe Wilson saying a professor was a member of a terrorist org. Didn’t have a clip to post at that time.

xp Like this is what Intifada means in the context of Israel/Palestine in 2023 for anyone who knows any history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#2000s If you support that, own it. If you think it's fine to repeatedly murder civilians riding on public buses and sitting in pizza restaurants in Tel Aviv because of what their government is doing in the West Bank, just say so. Don't tell me intifada just means shaking off, and don't pivot to Israel is actually worse. Because I'm not arguing with you about Israel, I'm arguing with you about whether the people organizing chants about intifada against "zionists" mean terrorism against civilians, and if that's the chant they are choosing right after October 7, they obviously fucking know it means that.

2. a class "featuring a person who is with the terrorist organization PFLF"

So if that's what he is referring to, no there were not "Professors called out by name and saying they are members of terrorist organizations."

Not following this

Stefanik: And you understand that the use of the term “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the State of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?

Gay: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

Stefanik: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, quote “There is only one solution: intifada, revolution” and quote “Globalize the intifada,” is that correct?

Gay: I’ve heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes.

Stefanik: So based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?

Gay: I will say again, that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

Stefanik: Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s Code of Conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?

Gay: It is at odds with the values of Harvard.

Stefanik: Can you not say here that it is against the Code of Conduct at Harvard?

Gay: We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful — it’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation…

Stefanik: Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? You testified that you understand that that is the definition of “intifada.” Is that speech according to the Code of Conduct or not?

Gay: We embrace a commitment to free expression, and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable, outrageous and offensive.

Stefanik: You and I both know that that is not the case.

I'll drop it now, but I just wanted to clarify that this was the context of my intifada comments. I was also thinking about felicity's call for attention to accuracy. I'm not gaslighting anyone—in fact I specifically mentioned that dictionary literalism wasn't helpful here—I simply think glossing "intifada" as "genocide against Jews" is inaccurate and, in the context of this hearing, disingenuous.

in the end it matters not because we have free speech in the US and you can say whatever the fuck you want, unless you are directly threatening another individual or doing it so much that it is impinging on their ability to function (harassment). we may not like that, but that's the case. This has been litigated over and over and over and over again.

Would either of you mind elaborating? I guess I am one of the naive, as it's genuinely news to me that "intifada" could be interpreted in good faith to mean "genocide against Jews." Neither of the historical Palestinian intifadas could be described as genocides; if nothing else, both resulted in more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. It also has a literal meaning in Arabic, though I know literal definitions don't necessarily help in these situations (c.f. jihad).

― rob, Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:53 PM bookmarkflaglink

Here, let me decode this for you.

Since I grant a lot of this is coded in a way you don't see.

The chant I quoted was "there is only one solution! Intifada revolution!"

Leaving aside the first and second Intifada, the word "solution" is part of the Final Solution. The Final Solution was Hitler's plan to genocide Jews. Now I didn't say they intend it. But it is fact. Look, the word "solution" is 50% of the phrase "Final Solution." Fact.

I was being charitable when I called this "naïve."

I simply think glossing "intifada" as "genocide against Jews" is inaccurate and, in the context of this hearing, disingenuous.

― rob, Thursday, December 7, 2023 2:44 PM bookmarkflaglink

Likewise, I think glossing over the word "solution" in the chant is inaccurate, and in the context of this hearing, disingenuous.

My point is really less about the students who don't know stuff and more about the educated people who do know what they are saying. Because I think the idea that "people mean different things by what they are chanting" kind of belies the way activism and organizing actually works and the way communication works.

what was the name of the hearing?

The hearing was called "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J0Nu9BN5Qk

Congressional Republicans have exactly zero interest in Jews except as rhetorical bludgeons with which to beat their enemies — in this case, college professors. Their interest in "confronting anti-Semitism" at this hearing is at best, directly tied to their support for the Netanyahu government, but at worst, it's about attacking enemies of Republicanism (as defined in the Trump era), which is to say educated people, people who read, people who have less than black-and-white ideas about issues, etc., etc.

I don't know you, felicity. But the amount of latitude you're granting to Elise fucking Stefanik — who is an absolute amoral grifter with no interests or goals beyond whatever momentary advantage she can gain for the Republican Party in the moment — makes me wonder about the prism through which you see the world around you.

Did you watch the hearing? I know you, and I know your posts.

Stenik's politics are abhorrent. That is why I said "stopped clock."

You are making extremely incorrect assumptions about me if you are equating the topic of accountability for campus antisemitism with the fact that questioning is led by a particular person. You are playing the "political football" that I am saying is disgusting - delegitimizing a topic because of the speaker.

You don't want to get me started on your posts. Or are you just posting "as a character" again.

so it was a hearing on antisemitism, sorry i'm confused because I thought you were saying it wasn't just about antisemitism and it was about multiple issues including islamaphobia. maybe they did address this, but it doesn't sound like it was a primary talking point.

Well don't be confused. Why don't you watch the hearing and we can discuss.

Did you watch the hearing?

I did not. Why would I ever need to? That's a serious question.

Are there anti-Semites on college campuses? Of course. Every type of idiot can be found on a college campus, just as they can be found everywhere else. The only important questions related to a Congressional hearing on "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism" are:

- why is this the business of the United States House of Representatives?
- what does "Holding [x] Accountable" mean, in practical terms? what is the enforcement mechanism?
- why is anti-Semitism, as defined by the Trump-era Republican Party, the only example of bigotry on campus that requires a hearing in December 2023?

felicity, and this is the last time i will say anything to you: i don’t care what you think about me or anything else. your politics are abhorrent and cape for genocidaires despite your consistent protests to the contrary, and i have nothing else to say to you.

Maybe they are trying to compensate for actually calling NeoNazis “fine people”?

- why is unperson, who posted that he doesn’t give a fuck about colonialism, pretending to be some kind of moral authorityof?
- why does unperson persist in posting itt and not returning to his level of complaining about punk bands clothes on magazine covers?

Why would I ever need to? That's a serious question.

Because then you wouldn't have to post that you "wonder" about me. It's creepy.

your politics are abhorrent and cape for genocidaires despite your consistent protests to the contrary, and i have nothing else to say to you.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:16 PM bookmarkflaglink

table, you don't know me, you don't know my politics. You are upset that people don't agree with you. I am not the only one.

You have a visceral reaction to certain topics. I said it's fine that you do, but you continue to spread claims about me that you cannot back up. Why don't you paste where I "cape for" genocidaires. You can't. Please engage with my posts, but please stop misquoting me.

Unperson may be an unserious person at times, I dunno, you are all sock puppets to me aside from Sarah who I actually know IRL. But unperson poses legit questions there I think.

I’m not going to watch hours of Stefanik unless someone pays me.

Because then you wouldn't have to post that you "wonder" about me. It's creepy.

That's a rhetorical dodge. Why do you think it's important that everyone posting in this thread watch a bunch of Republican House members browbeat college administrators? What knowledge would we gain? Or is it just because you watched it and now you want everyone else to suffer as you have suffered?

The only important questions related to a Congressional hearing on "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism" are:

- why is this the business of the United States House of Representatives?
- what does "Holding [x] Accountable" mean, in practical terms? what is the enforcement mechanism?
- why is anti-Semitism, as defined by the Trump-era Republican Party, the only example of bigotry on campus that requires a hearing in December 2023?

― Tahuti Watches L&O:SVU Reruns Without His Ape (unperson), Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:14 PM bookmarkflaglink

I answered some of these questions. It's part of a Title VI inquiry. Here is a link:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual5

What else are you trying to understand?

Like a lot of hostile environments that create conditions for harassment and discrimination, a lot depends on it being plausibly deniable. It is not a left or right issue. Why are you trying to making it one?

It's very telling that you consider yourself in a position to declare what are and aren't "the important questions."

It reminds me a bit of the Bret Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. I watched it to see how disgusting it was to see a white man throw a tantrum over being denied his white male privilege. He got confirmed. Does that make me a Republican? I don't think so.

Why do you think it's important that everyone posting in this thread watch a bunch of Republican House members browbeat college administrators? What knowledge would we gain? Or is it just because you watched it and now you want everyone else to suffer as you have suffered?

― Tahuti Watches L&O:SVU Reruns Without His Ape (unperson), Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:29 PM bookmarkflaglink

Why don't you ask Keyes, who first posted about the hearing? He opened the door to this topic.

I think it's important to watch original sources to the extent accounts of the hearing are somewhat distorted and misquoted.

Change the topic if you can't stand it.

What else is part of this inquiry? Where is the full current inquiry documented? I’m simply curious because no media is mentioning this as part of a wider thing which is not to say it isn’t.

Change the topic if you can't stand it.

OK. Is people using the word "intifada" in a chant on a college campus more or less "genocidal" than Israel deliberately destroying the Gazan archives, the Palestinian Legislative Council, and the historical records there?

The head of Gaza municipality said Wednesday that Israel destroyed the “Central Archives” which contained thousands of historical documents dating more than 150 years.

“Targeting the Central Archives poses a great danger to the city, as it contains thousands of historically valuable documents for the community,” Yahya Al-Sarraj told Anadolu.

He pointed out that “these documents … represent an integral part of our history and culture.”

“The Central Archives contains plans for ancient buildings of historical value and documents in the handwriting of well-known national figures,” he said.

“These documents, dating back a long time, were burned, turning them into ashes, erasing a large part of our Palestinian memory,” he noted.

Al-Sarraj said: “The occupation targeted many buildings, including large and monumental cultural centers, as well as public parks belonging to the municipality.”

“Targeting included the Rashad al-Shawwa Historical Cultural Center, a very important center that includes a theater and a central library, which was targeted without any justification.

“The Israeli occupation also targeted the Palestinian Legislative Council and the memorial monument in the Memorial Park for the (Al-Jundi Al-Majhool) Unknown Soldier,” he said.

Al-Sarraj said “the attempt by the occupation to destroy everything beautiful, to erase Palestinian memory, and to impose a policy of obscuring the people, making Palestinian cities uninhabitable.”

As part of the targeting of the Palestinian people and everything related to their values, heritage, culture and identity, Israel targeted memorials in several governorates since the start of its war early last month, including the Memorial of the Martyrs of the Marmara Ship in Gaza Port, the memorial of late journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the Jenin Refugee Camp and the memorial of late President Yasser Arafat in Tulkarm, in the West Bank.​​​​​​​

The main library in the Gaza Strip also did not escape the Israeli war machine, which bombed it during raids that targeted Gaza City since the outbreak of the war on Oct. 7.

The library, known as the Public Offices Building, is the largest in the Strip, containing historical documents and books.

According to statements made Tuesday by the spokesperson for the Gaza City municipality, Hosni Muhanna, residents of the city consider it the memory of the country and its present.