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

Great piece on denial in the LRB:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n02/conor-gearty/short-cuts

In States of Denial, Cohen was highly critical of the way liberal culture had accommodated Israel’s actions. He discussed three versions of denial: literal denial (it never happened); interpretative denial (it’s not what you think it is) and implicatory denial (we have to do it/it’s terrible, but it’s not our fault). It’s much harder for the Israeli authorities to pull off literal denial than it was before the existence of social media, though it lingers on in their dismissal of the dangers facing the population of Gaza (we are creating safe spaces for the innocent; they should go to the south) and of the severity of conditions there (there is enough food and water; there would be a plentiful supply of fuel if Hamas stopped hoarding it). But the essential facts can hardly be denied: more than 23,000 deaths, around 1 per cent of the population; the destruction of a third of the buildings in the territory; attacks on schools, universities, hospitals and cultural centres; and the forced movement of 1.9 million people.

Instead, and in a move not anticipated by Cohen but which the sociologist in him might have admired, Israel and its supporters have flipped the need for denial to the other side: instead of Israel attempting to show that the atrocities it is committing in Gaza are not in fact taking place, the Palestinians and their supporters find themselves having to prove to the world that things that did not happen actually did not happen − or not in the way Israel says they did. Disproving fabrications is an exhausting business, usefully so from Israel’s point of view. Refutation takes time and often comes too late to undermine what have become entrenched truths.

….

How do we square all these efforts at denial with the celebration by many in Israel at the death and destruction being visited on the population of Gaza, the pressure for the same kind of action to be taken in the West Bank, and the proud circulation by Israeli troops of selfies and videos from the scene to show to their families and friends? Describing the Palestinians as vermin to be removed or killed is hardly the language of denial, but many Israelis combine celebration with a denial that what’s happening is their fault. Denial in Israel is a means of keeping supporters abroad on message. We in the Global North need lies so that we can continue to see our support for Israeli action as morally possible.

To steelman that argument a bit as it pertains to the ICJ genocide proceeding, I think that's the importance of provisional relief against the destruction of evidence that would prove genocide.

Letter from the BMA to government calling for a ceasefire and establishment of a humanitarian corridor. Some (like the professional I link to) are talking about the no hostage mention, though they also neglect to mention the thousands of Palestinians in jails + "NO mention that virtually every hospital, every school, every mosque in Gaza has been shown to be a base for weapons & attacks" is telling.

Ashamed to be a member of @TheBMA after all these years. This letter is as far from a statement of neutrality as can be imagined

NO mention of #hostages which include children and women who have been held for over 100 days without any access to @ICRC

NO mention of the… https://t.co/BZEGC64Ivo

— Prof Liz Lightstone PhD FRCP FISN 🇬🇧🇮🇱🇺🇦💙💜 (@kidneydoc101) January 15, 2024

Given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza, continued concern "what about the hostages" concern trolling remains utterly vile.

I mean it is a fucking awful situation for them and their families. It’s been three months. The hostage families have been harshly criticising of the government for continuing the war specifically because it puts their families at risk. So…?

critical*

Yes, I think including a line about the hostages makes perfect sense, doesn't distract from the destruction in Gaza in any meaningful way and it's pretty messed up that it mostly exists in the public discourse as something for the Israeli govt to crow about, especially when as gyac states it's not like the hostage's families are onboard with the govt's program.

Obv tweets from ppl like the one above are to be disregarded but that doesn't invalidate the point.

I'm sure it's a terrible situation for those families but these issues are always used as sticks with which to beat people objecting to imperialism, war and death. In a statement condemning active genocide in Gaza, there is zero need to establish any bona fides by referring to hostages, rockets launched at Israel at any point, the right of Israel to exist, etc..

Object to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? "Oh, I don't see you condemning 9/11/Saddam's reign of terror/etc.."
Object to genocide in Gaza? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Hamas..."
Object to saber rattling with China? "Oh, I don't see you condemning the treatment of Uighur Muslims..."
Object to US fomenting coups in Latin America? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Castro/Chavez/Maduro..."

100% of the time it is concern trolling.

The focus on care, that Palestinians can't access it is fine enough for a Medical British org appealling to their own government, which happens to be taking part in military action in the middle east.

Object to genocide in Gaza? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Hamas..."

Object to saber rattling with China? "Oh, I don't see you condemning the treatment of Uighur Muslims...".

But in this instance isn't the statement including both? I understand the idea its not necessarily appropriate to mention the hostages when criticising Israel, but is it bad if someone does? Like if a person objects to sabre rattling with China AND the treatment of Uighur Muslims, is that bad? Not saying they should be required to do so in order to criticise sabre rattling, but if they choose to I don't see why thats bad, it is part of the picture too I think

It's generally pretty obvious why it's being used when you examine the overall attitudes of the people who are using it.

I'm sure it's a terrible situation for those families but these issues are always used as sticks with which to beat people objecting to imperialism, war and death.

If you all read the rest of that tweet that xyzzz posted, you will find a Hasbara-addled woman who believes everything Israeli propaganda says and is an obvious Islamophobe. She is concern trolling and a fascist.

It's generally pretty obvious why it's being used when you examine the overall attitudes of the people who are using it.

I can agree with that. What I'm less convinced by is the idea that anyone that mentions the hostages is in the same camp, up to 100% of the time.

Hostages are important and they seem to have been forgotten as Israel racks up the daily death and destruction (over 100 deaths a day is what I see), as have the thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails.

So I think a call for a ceasefire is pretty much the priority, statement-wise. All else follows.

If you all read the rest of that tweet that xyzzz posted, you will find a Hasbara-addled woman who believes everything Israeli propaganda says and is an obvious Islamophobe. She is concern trolling and a fascist.

I want the release of the hostages too, fwiw— I agree with anvil in this way. If the message is “we must have a ceasefire, a release of hostage taken by Hamas, and a release of prisoners taken by Israel since 10/7,” then let’s go.

But if the response to call for ceasefire and a plea to avoid humanitarian catastrophe is “what about the hostages” then that is an obvious concern troll, and I stand by my characterization

To be clear here, I don't think anyone should be required to say anything about the hostages, any more than they should be asked to condemn Hamas, or to say anything at all

but if they do say something about releasing the hostages, or they do condemn Hamas, I think there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever,

yeah sorry didn’t mean to put words in yr mouth there, anvil

all good!

"I don’t read any of the tweets xyzzzz__ posts"

Yet you complain about them? Normal.

Nah I’m really just referring to not reading anything outside the preview. I’m not going digging into tweets that are posted unless I recognise the account.

Fair enough

I want the release of the hostages too, fwiw— I agree with anvil in this way. If the message is “we must have a ceasefire, a release of hostage taken by Hamas, and a release of prisoners taken by Israel since 10/7,” then let’s go.

This is what I'm arguing for. It pre-empts the concern trolling in tweets like the one posted at no cost to the cause. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I haven't found an issue with that myself. The empathy gap is your problem, not other people’s.

Gyac you've not heard concern for the hostages being used as an argument for supporting Israeli strikes on Gaza?? This surprises me. I certainly have, it is a disingenous argument but it is a talking point.

Yeah, no, when I mentioned the empathy gap, that’s what I meant. I don’t have an issue feeling sympathetic towards the hostages and their suffering just because their government are cunts.

Seriously fellas. You absolutely don’t have to pretend that the hostage situation is the biggest source of human suffering in this conflict and repeat Kahanist talking points, but they are civilians who didn’t do anything to be separated from their families for three months. Sure there’s some concern trolling over them, by people doing nothing to ameliorate their suffering - or any suffering - but like…they are in a shit situation through no fault of their own. I mean I guess you can throw a tantrum every time they’re mentioned, or you can move on.

But what provoked this discussion wasn't people throwing a tantrum because hostages were mentioned, it's the reverse?

And again, I do think it would've been both morally correct and productive to include mention of the hostages. I find the weaponization of their plight sickening and don't see why we should accept its binary. But I also don't think pointing out this weaponizing as milo did attests to any kind of empathy gap.

But what provoked this discussion wasn't people throwing a tantrum because hostages were mentioned, it's the reverse?

And again, I do think it would've been both morally correct and productive to include mention of the hostages. I find the weaponization of their plight sickening and don't see why we should accept its binary. But I also don't think pointing out this weaponizing as milo did attests to any kind of empathy gap.

I don't understand what view you think I think you hold?

I agree the tweet xyzz posted is by a clearly deranged person but I don't think the backlash to the BMA not mentionig hostages amounts only to deranged people on twitter. Maybe it does!

It is worth pointing out that Israel doesn’t give a shit about the hostages at this point, either, except inasmuch as the state can utilize their plight to punish Palestinians.

"I agree the tweet xyzz posted is by a clearly deranged person"

She's a Prof at Imperial College

XP but that doesn't mean that no-one should be concerned about them - and if that is not what you mean, then why is it worth pointing that out?

It is worth pointing out that Israel doesn’t give a shit about the hostages at this point, either, except inasmuch as the state can utilize their plight to punish Palestinians.

It is worth pointing out that Israel doesn’t give a shit about the hostages at this point, either, except inasmuch as the state can utilize their plight to punish Palestinians.

"I do find this thread pretty stressful and the shit going on isn’t a game"

If this was an utterly random person I wouldn't have pasted this here. I am not stupid enough to post "every piece of trash" I come across, but unfortunately you are going to come up across some stressful material if you in any way decide to follow developments.

XP but that doesn't mean that no-one should be concerned about them - and if that is not what you mean, then why is it worth pointing that out?

In an Israeli context, concern about the hostages is now associated with support for ceasefire and demands that Netanyahu resign.

but is it bad if someone does?

I didn’t say that at all. This is about Liz Lightstone (and all the other Lightstones) explicitly using ‘but they didn’t mention the hostages’ as an excuse to attack an organization’s criticism of ongoing genocide.

Nor can one dismiss her as some random crank (which I’m sure she is, but she’s also representative)- “why don’t you also condemn thing X” is page 1 in the playbook for responding to anti-war/imperialism statements.

Those of you who’d answer back to a post like that could always go for what I’d say, which is “what are you doing to help those poor hostages? Using them as emotional blackmail in fights with strangers on the internet isn’t the rhetorical win you think it is!”

She's a Prof at Imperial College

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 16 January

In nephrology! I am sure most experts in Middle Eastern politics wouldn't feel confident in expressing expert opinion in diseases of the kidney, so why should experts in diseases of the kidney feel their opinions on Middle Eastern politics have any kind of audience?

i have no idea who liz lightstone is, and I assume almost no one else here does either

xp: Again, this is a Medical researcher at a top educational establishment, who has a public profile, commenting on a statement by the British Medical Association.

Most of us don't know most people. but I'm distinguishing between the above and someone who doesn't have a public profile (basically you or me).

According to this we are down to the last hospital.

https:/twitter.com/fatimasal82/status/1747421178036396280?s=20

Dunno if this is the thread for it but... My partner and one of our friends from church were arrested yesterday during this action. I regret that I couldn't be there with them, but I feel so proud and inspired.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2K5PGtxew6/

great stuff

Great article: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-fred-dube-affair/

At the State University of New York at Stony Brook, the syllabus for an Africana Studies summer course entitled The Politics of Race includes prompts for students in need of term paper guidance. The twelve optional topics are deliberately provocative: “Can a Christian or a democrat be a racist?” “I.Q. tests are a means for blaming the victim.” “Zionism is as much racism as Nazism was racism.” A historian visiting from Israel’s Ben-Gurion University complains that the latter topic, thus the course, thus the professor are examples of anti-Semitism. An uproar ensues.

This year is 1983. The professor under scrutiny is Ernest Frederick Dube, the South African anti-apartheid activist, Robben Island survivor, Cornell-trained psychologist, husband, and father. Branded as an anti-Semite, he will be gone from the Stony Brook campus by 1987.

BREAKING: David Lammy's speech has been interrupted by pro-Palestinian protestershttps://t.co/lt9tVuJ1rq

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/ZyXojOQnK2

— Sky News (@SkyNews) January 20, 2024