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

the US didn't invite families of American hostages to the Hanukkah celebration, which just seems like setting yourself up for criticism. Dumb, White House.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/families-hostages-white-house-hanukkah/index.html

Why was your post deleted Felicity? I was about to reply to it.

I'll just post part of my reply, which is that I only posted that piece from The New Yorker because we happened to get talking about the nature of Hamas' violence back on the 10/7.

And then I was going to remind us all why we got to talking about Hamas' actions on the 10/7, and in response to what post. But I will leave that out.

I requested deletion because I was intending to hide text part of that post. It's ok.

Ok.

---

UN News
@UN_News_Centre
BREAKING: UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution demanding immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, as well as immediate and unconditional release of all hostages

FOR: 153
AGAINST: 10
ABSTAIN: 23

US still voted against even with the demand for hostage release? Jesus

The context is that the US and other countries voted against the resolution because the majority of member states would not vote to include the following two draft amendments to the language of the resolution:

Austria has proposed an amendment, that inserts the phrase, “held by Hamas and other groups” in relation to the hostages still being held by Palestinian militants in Gaza, as well as inserting the word “immediate” in reference to ensuring humanitarian access.

The first draft amendment has secured 89 for, 61 against and 20 abstentions. This means the Austrian amendment failed under the two-thirds rule.

The US amendment reflects its continued point of contention regarding Hamas, which it designates as a terrorist group, calling for wording to be inserted “unequivocally” rejecting and condemning “the heinous terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages” as the first operative paragraph.

The second draft amendment from the US sees 84 in favour, 62 against and 25 abstaining. Again, the amendment failed.

UN resolutions are not legally binding but of moral weight only.

Not binding, but influential
Resolutions by the General Assembly, though not legally binding on nations, do carry immense moral weight, representing the collective resolve of the UN membership on a matter of grave importance.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717

I've seen a lot of conflicting reporting on what UNRWA schools and hospitals have done or not done, but the above amendments are basically the source of contention.

Of course it would be great if the UN resolution did result in the release of hostages and ceasefire.

Last paragraph otm

"Do you condemn Hamas" gotcha question being used to greenlight this genocide and lengthen Netanyahu's career.

All of these resolutions are moral. This is about further isolating Israel. We need to see worldwide Boycotts of the country. It should be treated like Apartheid era South Africa.

Agreed.

Back on the university note, as was expected, the deep-pocketed donor who drove Magill’s ouster at UPenn seems to be trying to set the agenda for faculty hiring, retention, and classroom pedagogy. Or at least he has “questions.” This is where this always was going to go— donors dictating to schools what they should and shouldn’t do. https://www.inquirer.com/education/marc-rowan-university-pennsylvania-agenda-20231212.html

Israel next.
---

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
@FCDOGovUK
🔴 SANCTIONED: leaders and financiers of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Working with our allies we are isolating Hamas and cutting off their funding.

Palestinian and Israeli citizens have a right to live in peace without the brutality of Hamas

Right.

BREAKING: Israeli ambassador @TzipiHotovely rejects the idea of a two-state solution

"The answer is absolutely no", she says.https://t.co/cjkJJFipKp

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/9z0fMWSSui

— Sky News (@SkyNews) December 13, 2023

shocked!

They probably wouldn’t give it to Hannah Arendt https://t.co/z0wh1zBQWR

— John Ganz (@lionel_trolling) December 13, 2023

speaking of that gessen essay

Students for Justice in Palestine group at Rutgers New Brunswick suspended for seemingly no reason— I did some research and these accounts are pretty accurate.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pS9xFt-_JGVFqOJLPfOYYWo5ETVzLKey/view

Politoco was reporting John Gottheimer's letter about Rutgers

At Rutgers, anonymous protesters have gathered outside of the Chabad House, destroyed hostage posters, and verbally assaulted Jewish students. The Chabad Rabbi reported that Jewish students felt “physically afraid” to leave the building.

The University’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter labeled Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attacks as “justified retaliation.”9 In November, a Rutgers student was charged with bias intimidation, terroristic threats, and false public alarm after posting on social media threats to kill an Israeli student from the AEPi fraternity.10 Jewish students on campus feel “devastated, and terrified.”11

"You allegedly have had multiple cases of disrupting classes, a program, meals, and students studying,"

I didn’t see thost despite some Googling. Apologies!

Here's the letter btw: https://d12t4t5x3vyizu.cloudfront.net/gottheimer.house.gov/uploads/2023/12/Gottheimer-Letter-to-Rutgers-President-December-7-Event_JG-Final.pdf

Neither Estes nor Hill are antisemites, sorry.

Yes, the citations in the letter making that claim are unconvincing. Gottheimer seems to see zero distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, which is unfortunate because the incidents in the part felicity quoted are quite serious.

I think the Chabad post ("strapped, armed, locked and loaded") was a play on the wearing of Tefillin, as shown in the picture (straps around your arms, the box is loaded with a scroll and locked?) -- maybe like "haha we are using prayer, not violence" -- but nonetheless ill considered and needlessly inflammatory.

Some of the links in the letter are paywalled - clearly there have been bad incidents on campus, but it's a little bit unclear to me to what extent SJP is associated with them or not (there's a quote from the WaPo about SJP calling 10/7 "justified retaliation" but I can't actually read the link)

Ok nm got it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/10/colleges-react-israel-hamas-war/

Diverging views on the conflict are already creating divisions on campuses. Over the weekend, Students for Justice in Palestine at Rutgers University issued a statement standing with the “Palestinian resistance” and calling the attack on Israel a “justified retaliation.”

Isabella Kajiwara
@kajiifire
·
3h
Violent arrest of Jewish activist protesting at a fundraiser for Israel at Royal Society of Arts, with Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Hotovely just now!! Near Charing Cross station.

masha gessen
@mashagessen
·
8h
You'd think, with all the attention to the Arendt Prize debacle, I'd be inundated with media calls/texts. You'd be wrong. Not one German journalist has reached out for comment. One US journalist did. All reporting has happened with no input/reaction from me. Inaccuracies pile up

Good piece by Judith Butler both apologizing for their initial response to 10/7 as well as diagnosing the problems with speech on campuses. Here it is

In a mind-bending twist, those who oppose genocide are, paradoxically, sometimes accused of genocidal intention, as we saw in Republican representative Elise Stefanik’s December 7 public grilling of University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill and Harvard president Claudine Gay. Her interrogation packed a number of dubious assumptions into the questions—that certain phrases express genocidal intent—rather than considering their place in an emancipation movement. Intifada, generally translated as “uprising” in Arabic, means “to be shaken” or “to shake oneself.” It is understood as a movement that refuses to remain docile in the face of colonial violence, an effort to throw off the shackles of colonial rule. It is also a call for Palestinian unity. Does it necessarily imply genocidal violence? No. Now, some may imagine that the colonized, once freed of their shackles, will turn against the colonizer with vengeful, genocidal intention. But imagining is not prediction. Indeed, that will not happen if a radical decolonization is successful. If the rage of intifada, however, is directed against colonial rule, then decolonization will more likely produce another emotion: emancipatory joy, a sense of freedom, the release from shackles that have only tightened over the seventy-five years of their imposition. One need only ask whether Palestinians would prefer to be killed by non-Jewish actors to see that it is state violence they oppose.

When asked whether Harvard University would condemn calls for Jewish genocide, Gay rightly hesitated, since the question assumed that anyone who called for “intifada” or chanted “from the river to the sea” was expressing genocidal intent or making a concrete threat to obliterate Israeli Jewish life, or Jewish life more broadly. The interrogation should have stopped right there to expose its fugitive assumptions. In the moment of questioning, however, they were consolidated: “intifada” and “from the river to the sea” were, without a pause of reflection, made identical with calling for genocide against the Jews, and calls for liberation were understood as threats of anti-Semitic violence. When the ability to reflect on questionable assumptions is ruled out, the trap is set. The terrible consequence is that there can be no critique of Israel’s killing machine, no oppositional speech, that is not immediately construed as a call for violence—if not the verbal threat of violence itself. Any president would be right to hesitate before answering such a question, since the interrogator has offered a set of false premises and specious conflations in the form that that question has taken. In the aftermath of Magill’s resignation, president Gay has an ethical decision to make: to stand up to forms of inquisition that conflate resistance to Israeli violence with genocidal intention, to stand up for the rights of protest and dissent, or to become an instrument of censorship and denial. Her stated apology does not bode well. Whatever she finally decides will set a consequential precedent for both academic freedom and freedom of expression.

I don't understand that at all, it seems thick-headed.

"Now, some may imagine that the colonized, once freed of their shackles, will turn against the colonizer with vengeful, genocidal intention. But imagining is not prediction." Prediction? It has already happened numerous times - what do you think 10/7 was? Again, I don't think "intifada" means "genocide," but in the direct wake of 10/7, used by people praising 10/7, it's not really a stretch to hear it as a call for violence against civilians. Meanwhile, globalizing it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/14/four-arrested-in-europe-over-alleged-cross-border-hamas-terrorism-plot

They’re very much not free of their shackles. Gaza and the West Bank are unrecognised and not autonomous in any meaningful way shape or form.

"Now, some may imagine that the colonized, once freed of their shackles, will turn against the colonizer with vengeful, genocidal intention. But imagining is not prediction." Prediction? It has already happened numerous times

Where?

En Belgique, « free Gaza » pour les feux verts, « stop Israël » pour les feux rouges. Une idée pour la mairie de @Paris ? pic.twitter.com/HvdL1lXF9F

— Muzna (@MuznaShihabi) December 14, 2023

man alive, it might not be so clear from that excerpt but Butler is referring to the assumption that if Palestinians are allowed to share a state with Israelis they will inevitably murder and oppress them in this hypothetical new state, so therefore a one-state solution shouldn't be pursued.

Protestors are shutting down I-76 in Philly right now

That is so annoying. I read some organ donations were jeopardized in the Bay Area from thay type of action.

The terrible consequence is that there can be no critique of Israel’s killing machine, no oppositional speech, that is not immediately construed as a call for violence—if not the verbal threat of violence itself.

Not buying this. Dartmouth handled this well. Providing space for critique in the academy without inciting the kind of speech that risks harassment and discrimination is possible.

I've read a number of pieces by Judith Butler on these threads. I'm aware she is on an academic continuum and political spectrum who often writes on this issue.

rob what you say is one assumption and maybe even true.

On this issue of campus chants, there is also the fact that certain chants are also slogans used by Hamas. I believe I read reports that Hamas called for an uprising of violence against Jewish people all around the world (please correct me if I am wrong on this). The fact that it was not a complete success does not hegate that there have been incidents of not only increased violence or symbolic hatred towards Jewish people.

I notice Judith Butler makes use of the "Zionist" label.

We talk about this a bit. I recently read pieces about how responding to charges of "anti-semitism" with a sort of moral outrage (anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism!) can be weaponized into a kind of reversal, where the punishment is to ostracize a person for not renouncing their "Zionism" sufficiently and therefore imply the person should not be taken seriously. As part of avoiding responding to the substance of reasoned criticism and reframe the discussion - not in terms of personal responsibility, action or expressions - but in terms of their position as oppressed/opressor.

Which is a tactic I immediately look for when I see "Zionism" introduced. Who is bringing this up, is it a derail, shall we spend time unpacking it, are we attacking a person and trying to avoid legitimate criticism by sarcastically shunning them and inviting others to do so with cruel mockery. Taken at its worst, then using it as a shield for harassment and retaliation.

This ostracism often works because Jewish people are so often outnumbered in any given situation.

Arguably this demagoguery and sloganeering raises awareness of Palestine in the West. So does shutting down freeways and blocking traffic.

Good to hear an alleged terror plot was foiled in Germany and the Netherlands, because I will be in both places in a couple of weeks and plan to visit a couple of sites of Jewish interest and I am very relieved I'll be perfectly safe.

Just so I'm not all bad news here was a video piece about how 2 Dartmouth professors from the Jewish Studies and Middle East Studies department created space for discussion immediately after 10/7 (or 7/10)

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2023/11/08/israel-gaza-on-campus-how-dartmouth-is-fostering-dialogue/

Notably they made student mental health a priority

Really love both of those Butler essays. On that first one published at the LRB, their words on how there is violence and a violence as seen by media really hit hard two months on.

There’s a lot to be said about US political dynamics but the running combination of racist bloodlust, craven and repressive McCarthyism, soul-dead cynicism, and utterly abject stupidity is particularly crushing at the moment. pic.twitter.com/IJ4YLIZhrb

— Ben Ehrenreich (@BenEhrenreich) December 14, 2023

Can't say I hadn't noticed...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/15/biden-extremist-jewish-settlers-travel-ban-loophole

sad lol

All 5 of these people gave a standing ovation to a Nazi https://t.co/m0hSqH5JZm

— Jeremy Appel - @jeremyappel.bsky.social (@JeremyAppel1025) December 15, 2023

https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/bdssupermarket

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5897e0_8fa7b3396bd34c919e8a53296a4913b6~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_640,h_804,al_t,q_90,enc_auto/5897e0_8fa7b3396bd34c919e8a53296a4913b6~mv2.jpg

would it be really weird if i got fully on board w/ the idf's wanton slaughter of toddlers, journalists, hostages etc? would it be off brand

— wint (@dril) December 15, 2023

that hummus shit is the stupidest protest I can imagine, I don't think Sabra is even an Israeli company is it? Good job solving all the problems in the middle east!

According to their website Sabra began in Queens, NY and is now owned by PepsiCo.

" But one of Sabra’s joint owners is the Strauss Group, an Israeli food company that according to its Web site provides financial support to the Golani brigade, part of Israel’s military force. (The other joint owner is PepsiCo.)"

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/education/04hummus.html

https://bdsmovement.net/get-involved/what-to-boycott

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led[6] movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel. Its objective is to pressure Israel to meet what the BDS movement describes as Israel's obligations under international law,[7] defined as withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and "respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties".[8] The movement is organized and coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

https://www.strauss-group.com/brand/sabra/

The critiques I have read about BDS include (1) that it doesn't affect Israel so much as it has a negative, disparate impact on the Jewish diaspora who tend to have more ties to Israel than non Jewish people, and (2) to the extent it affects individuals within Israel it encourages shunning academics and artists who are from Israel, and could otherwise foster contructive dialogue, as a form of collective punishment.

Yes I'm not aware of any Palestinian or Palestinian-led organised peaceful protest movements that have not faced fierce criticism and/or had attempts (successful or not) made to outlaw them.

Were the critics of BDS also critical of the boycott of South Africa (never mind, I'm sure they were)?

Criticism of actions and statements is fine, even encouraged. So is looking at impacts on individuals.

anvil asked elsewhere if Israel withdrew from the occupied lands to the 1948 or 1967 borders if that would negate the charges of apartheid. I was wondering the same.