Israel, Palestine & the Levant rolling events: Oct 23 on

some extremely heroic attempts at delivering aid right now, by sea, and via egypt, although sadly completely unequal to the task. israel continues to block all meaningful aid routes.

100%!! there is art and there are songs. there will be more.

The latest episode of Unapologetic: the Third Narrative podcast features a conversation with Gaza-born US citizen Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib talking about his experience going to UNRWA schools in Gaza, his opinions on Hamas and Israel and his opinions on what is needed for a path forward to peace.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-13-a-gazan-speaks-unrwa-hamas-and-more/id1714176763?i=1000649344702

He's lost a lot of family members in the conflict which you can read about on his Twitter. Like the hosts of this podcast, he is pretty blunt that Hamas has to go, that he does not want Gaza continuing to move in the direction of a fascist, dictatorship fundamentalist state like the Taliban, that too much time has been wasted, and he describes how UNRWA fell into a codependency of sorts with Hamas, with disastrous results for Gazans. In his opinion UNRWA needs to be reformed, not defunded. He talks about how UNRWA operates to maintain Palestinians aid-dependent within permanent refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as well as Gaza, which is not great for Palestinian people in those countries either, in his opinion, and would like to basically see a movement to constitute a Palestinian government from the Palestinian Authority.

The podcast and show are quite critical of Israel and aspects of the movements in the West too. As I think I mentioned, before they present themselves as neither "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israel" but (in their words) pro-peace and pragmatic. I don't know if there is a hidden agenda, but am finding it interesting.

I think everyone agrees Hamas aren't very good, and should absolutely go, of course

Unfortunately Israel's actions aren't achieving that aim, its a strategic disaster not just an ethical one. As Alkhatib says, targeting civilians doesn't really work and that goes the same for Netanyahu as it does for Hamas. Removing Hamas is a political operation not a military one, and one that can only be done by the population themselves, not via outside forces (as we saw the US also had trouble with this in Afghanistan)

Israel isn't removing Hamas. Israel is growing Hamas. And while Alkhatib correctly states that it is in Israels interest to have a developed Gaza, that doesn't mean Israel will necessary act in its own interests, which it clearly isn't doing so (though they're hardly unique in that currently)

But then the concept of "own interests" is subjective, and rests on a lot of assumptions

and would like to basically see a movement to constitute a Palestinian government from the Palestinian Authority

Wasn't the desire to forestall that the aim of Israel backing Hamas to start with?

like yeah a secular liberal democratic state would be fantastic, too bad the country actively carrying out a genocide is firmly opposed to it

Also: there’s a culture of dependency on UNRWA and aid because of Israel, not Hamas. People are displaced because of Israel, not Hamas.

The idea that Israel "backed Hamas" has become kind of a tall tale - there are grains of truth to it at times, but it is much more complex than that. Hamas is not an Israeli proxy or puppet, Hamas is the largest and most powerful vehicle of Palestinian anti-capitulationist resistance, and particularly Muslim Palestinian anti-capitulationist resistance. When Israel pulled out of Gaza, it did not back Hamas, it backed Fatah. No question that for a period of time Bibi (foolishly) saw Hamas as useful to divide the Palestinians, but a lot of what is described as "backing" Hamas is actually just a description of the simple reality that Hamas was the party in power in Gaza and therefore the party Israel had to deal with, and that Israel thought it was better off with "stability" created by Hamas receiving funding. Israel did not arm Hamas against itself, nor did it seek to create a bogeyman to justify conflict. Hamas is a very real Palestinian movement (and one that has support from Iran and Qatar, hardly cooperators with Israel). It's not as though Israel had the ability to install some other party in Gaza (it tried and failed to install Fatah!).

Hamas's goal has always been to prevent any compromise, or any solution that doesn't involve dismantling the Israeli state. When Hamas slaughtered buses and cafes full of civilians during the Second Intifada, this is exactly what it was aiming for - it wanted to harden people on both sides against any kind of negotiation or compromise, and it arguably succeeded, or it certainly helped that process. The kahanist right was still fringe back then - it was even banned from government. There were still a lot more Israelis (and I think more Palestinians too) who thought a compromise could be reached and were willing to accept a compromise. The same is true of the rocket attacks - the goal is to provoke and to prevent compromise. The longer this has gone on, and especially with October 7, the more interest in compromise among Israelis has dried up.

This all may seem a bit academic now, and none of this absolves Israel of responsibility for its abhorrent actions in Gaza, nor do I think Israel can realistically remove Hamas without creating a gaping power vacuum and doing even more needless destruction and harm, but if we want to talk about context, this is part of the context too.

all that is true, but there's also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

I think Israel could remove Hamas. But not by military means.

Or rather more to the point, Palestine could remove Hamas, if they were to get some help. The problem is that bombing people is a military solution not a political one and makes it more difficult to help them get rid of Hamas

Which means, whether Israel backed Hamas or not, intentionally, is arguable. But in terms of effect, they're backing them right now, they're creating more Hamas. Whether they mean to or not, the effect is the same

That should be Gaza not Palestine above I think

When Israel pulled out of Gaza, it did not back Hamas, it backed Fatah.

Israel was using Islamists/future Hamas/Hamas to counter the secular Arafat sphere in the '80s. Perhaps in the intervening 20 years they had some inkling they fucked up.

Saying that Hamas was backed by Israel is not the same as saying that Hamas is the creation of Israel, nor is 'Israel backing' mutually exclusive with 'authentically Palestinian.' They tried to use the Islamist enemy of their secular enemy to serve their own ends (to disastrous results), as Americans we couldn't imagine...

Hamas this, Hamas that.

Producing a stateless Palestinian population is not the answer. If that is what the Israeli state is doing we need another answer.

Hamas this, Hamas that.

Producing a stateless Palestinian population is not the answer. If that is what the Israeli state is doing we need another answer.

I started a novel/memoir by Israeli author S. Yizhar this morning which talks about the establishment of farms in land formerly owned by Arabs. There is an undercurrent of guilt about what has been done, with descriptions of the struggle to master a land they don't know but had to occupy as people who were themselves kicked out of Europe.

Might post more (on ILB) when I finish.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/18/al-shifa-hospital-raid-gaza-palestine-israel-idf-hamas-terrorist-activity-claims

There's no substitute for listening to Alkahatib, Amira or Ibrahim or reading their pieces so this is a paraphrase.

Generally, what Amira and Ibrahim say in the first episode is that they are resistant to Western narratives, as these are often backwards looking and not practical and lead to more death. Not to say that any of these accounts are wrong as it is true that both "sides" have done heinous things to the other. According to them, who say they have more skin in the game than the West, what is needed in this moment is an immediate cessation of violence, an acceptance of accountability and a way to move forward in co-existence. Not that Israel doesn't bear a big part of responsibility, but they personally are sick of war. Each time the Arab countries have attacked Israel and lost they have lost land and lost rights, so they think it's time to give up on the fantasy of eliminating Israel altogether and pursue peaceful coexistence.

Amira and Ibrahim don't always agree with each other, nor with their guests. They were talking a few episodes ago about with some Australian guests about how it's triggering to see protesters overseas calling for violent resistance by any means possible or "river to the sea" because it's the local populations who pay the price of violent resistance, not the diaspora.

Alkatib talked about his childhood experiences and also different analyses of motivations for or against statehood in the West Bank versus Gaza. What he says about Hamas is that Hamas is the "useful idiot" of Netanyahu and the right wing Israeli government, in the sense that while the PA had recognized the existence of Israel and (officially) denounced violence, Hamas hijacked the Gazan narrative and turned it into violent resistance. And that the fantasy of eliminating Israel is sort of egged on for cynical reasons in other parts of the world. He clarified that Hamas is an Islamist movement, Islamist being a political ideology not to be confused with Islamic culture or religion. He explained the layers of Hamas - the military wing, the political wing, the bureaucratic wing, and the people that just need jobs and work there and feel like they have little choice. Hamas are very incompetent at governing and corrupt, but that doesn't mean the solution is killing all of "Hamas" but finding a political off-ramp for removing Hamas leadership from governing and rehabilitating the rank and file as was done in Libya.

According to Alkatib, Hamas gives Netanyahu and israeli right-wingers an excuse to overreact with unwarranted force. Alkatib has written and talked about the anti-Hamas protest movements in Gaza, how he was horrified by the attack on October 7, as he never thought the Gazan independence movement would become associated in the minds of people worldwide with beheadings, burnings, and kidnapping of senior citizens and babies, and this has set progress back 20 years. What they would like to see is normalization of criticism of Hamas and more political pressure for the removal of Hamas. If Hamas is removed, then more external pressure can be brought to bear on the settlements and land swaps in the West Bank. But with Hamas, it is basically providing the fig leaf of an excuse for terrorizing and destruction.

I gotta say I’m a little wary of “third narrative” messaging, as well as taking a guy who “has a master’s degree in intelligence studies from American Military University” and contributes to an AIPAC-funded think tank as a wholly reliable source.

Of for sure. Be wary of all the narratives. If you're willing to listen to they NY Times coverage of Hamas (which I was) you should probably listen for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I think broadening your sources to include Palestinian voices is one way.

Of for sure. Be wary of all the narratives. If you're willing to listen to they NY Times coverage of Hamas (which I was) you should probably listen for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I think broadening your sources to include Palestinian voices is one way.

It's very hard to hear Palestinian voices under the rubble

and with the collapse of their infrastructure.

I've ilxmailed you back too felicity. Apologies for the delay

i think he might need to workshop these a little

Are you pro-Palestine? Have any plans to participate in a Gaza demonstration soon? Please consider these 2 slogans:

1. No Abbas, no Hamas; Palestinians need some serious brass

2. Stop this war for your people; Hamas must go because it's evil#no_abbas_no_hamas

— Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib (@afalkhatib) March 14, 2024

People are platforming voices from all angles. Feel free to read whatever you want or not.

It's already been commented on how vigorously certain claims are fact checked, while others are put forth without scrutiny.

I just don’t think people who work for pro-Israel think
tanks should be platformed at the moment! I know we differ there, probably, which is fine.

Regardless of what you think of his political views, it was interesting to hear of what it was like to move to Gaza at age 10, and how that differed from Amira's experience being from Jerusalem and Ibrahim's being from Nazareth. I don't know how anyone can hear his story of losing so many family members without compassion and wanting an end to the violence.

We all want an end to the violence. I don’t think Hamas is doing a good job at that, but the guy works for a pro-Israel think tank— ngl, when I think of a Palestinian working for a pro-Israel think tank, the first words that come to my mind are “Stockholm Syndrome.”

You can think that, and I'm willing to hear you out. I was listening to that podcast before they even had Alkatib on as a guest. I've listened to or read most things that people have linked here. Some things people have debunked, some nobody comments on or bothers.

If you have a source for why your opinion invalidates some of his life experiences (which I don't think you're saying, but some of the replies on Twitter literally cannot accept that he is a real person who lost family), I am willing to read that.

I was interested in what Alkatib would say about UNRWA schools, as I suspected the UNRWA defunding hearing presented an exaggerated cartoon-villain version of UNRWA curriculum. His account was nothing like that. He described there is some resentment internally within Gaza because only the 70% considered refugees are allowed to attend UNRWA schools. But the UNRWA schools are generally very good according to him, and the population of Gaza according to him is very well educated and has high literacy rates.

If you want to discredit these ideas as pro-Israel, that's fine. I'm interested in whatever accounts people want to put forth and make up my own mind. There is so much bickering and disagreement over sources, I think more information is better.

I'm sure he has an interesting life story, and it's terrible that he's lost so many family members. Just from looking at his social media, he seems to be a believer in technocratic, development-based solutions to the conflict, which seems really doubtful in terms of gaining any kind of popular support, but I'm no expert. I just get the impression from the replies to his posts that he is most valuable to allies of Israel as a Reasonable Palestinian, who allows them to avoid listening to other voices who might have lived in Gaza/Palestine much more recently and might be a lot less fond of America. I don't think that's the way you view him, for the record.

Technocrats have their time and place, and were there to be any kind of resolution, they would be needed to hammer out the details. I don’t think they have much to offer in the current situation though.

Not sure what that means but I certainly have no standing to label anyone. Last I checked he was beefing with some NGO CEOs on Twitter about delivering food aid to starving people in Gaza. The point there was I think he was highlighting some problems of corruption and self-interest in the business of non profits. That's certainly been a flashpoint in the UN and UNRWA stories.

If there's a reason not to believe something he's written by all means point it out. He said the reason he's in the US is because he couldn't re-enter Gaza after his exchange program because the border was closed after Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit. Then he applied for asylum and hasn't been back since. Of course that probably has an influence on his view.

Maybe he's a total shill, I don't know. He talked about how groups wanted him to politicize his personal losses and hiw that made him feel. I'm equally wary of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and confirmation bias.

I don't think he's in fundamental disagreement with anyone here as far as I can see, I think everyone as far as I've seen has been pretty negative about Hamas for the most part. They have been pretty poor by most metrics and haven't delivered anything of any note that anyone is going to point to or get behind.

And with his connections in Gaza, thats presumably where his feels his influence or leverage is best placed, which makes sense. I think as Westerners our leverage is more on our own governments, and by extension, Israel, which is I think where our efforts are better placed. Hamas are certainly bellends, and if anyone asks me to condemn Hamas I will say 'yes, they are bellends, this is true, of course", but that doesn't really achieve anything.

Hamas will be defeated by Israel learning they have to win the peace, not a war. Attacking civilians is a strategic mistake for Israels own security. We should all want Hamas gone, of course, and the best way to achieve that is for Israel to not to continue giving the impression to people in Gaza that they want to kill them

Or really, to move the conversation away from the ethical to the logistical. If your goal was to eradicate Hamas, how would you go about it?

my own sense is that Hamas is happier being the leaders of a popular resistance movement in an IDF-occupied Gaza than doing the mundane work of running a government. Which is why the Israeli response has played into their hands. I wonder if Israel's reacted to Oct 7 exactly as Hamas predicted they would.

I think there is a position between the centuries-old vile conspiracy theories of blame the Jewish people/zionists/israel for whatever is currently wrong in society and "10/7 was done by UNRWA graduates".

When I mentioned the No True Scotsman fallacy I was thinking of the claim advanced here from time to time that violence inevitably creates more Islamists or inevitably makes the religious Zionist party in Israel stronger. I think we've seen it with younger people in the US today, they don't really care about the conflict or history the way oldeer generations do. They are worried about mental health and global warming. They seem able to think in different ways. So my point is this guy doesn't seem to agree that killing more Gazans only makes more Hamas at least if you can accept he is some sort of Gazan. It may be worth being open minded as to why he thinks that way as time is not on our side as a species.

I wonder if Israel's reacted to Oct 7 exactly as Hamas predicted they would.

We've only conjecture on that, I think the response is probably larger than expected, maybe even more than they hoped, but thats a question of scale. They will have known about Netanyahu's somewhat precarious personal position and that there was a good chance he might ramp up the response, but whether they were counting on that is difficult to say.

Israel has kind of backed themselves into a corner by not responding with proportionality. People always say proportionality is an ethical consideration, which isnt entirely true, proportionality is in order to give yourself as much flexibility as possible in increasing or decreasing your actions more easily instead of boxing yourself in to a particular set of actions. But then could make the argument Netanyahu has boxed Israel in intentionally, for personal reasons, as he has troubles of his own he is looking to avoid. I presume Hamas factored that in too

So my point is this guy doesn't seem to agree that killing more Gazans only makes more Hamas at least if you can accept he is some sort of Gazan

I don't think this is specific to Gaza, I think for the most part killing people turns them against you, often radicalising them in the process, which is why insurgencies continue long after victories in many cases, and only really tend to fade away when there's more of a move away from violence. Its just usually an unreliable approach

Meanwhile..

1 in 3 children under 2 years of age are today acutely malnourished in the north, according to nutrition screenings conducted by UNICEF and partners. https://t.co/ribVLUCy3L

— Maryam Aldossari (@maryam_dh) March 17, 2024

Maybe he's a total shill

afaic, that ends any discussion as to whether the guy is worth listening to or not. his primary job is working for an arm of AIPAC, and he was educated at one of our military universities.

if i get pushback for posting polemics from Salaita, then one should expect pushback for posting hasbara-infected junk from a guy who lends his ethnic heritage to cover for the state that is killing his people.

What's happening on the ground may take a long time to uncover, if ever.

I just had a long distressing call with a friend from #Gaza What's happening now is much worse than anything we are told by the media. In the North the situation is one of "manhunting" where the residents who remained are chased after by #IDF home by home like "rats", he said 1/3

— chantal melonì (@chamelons) March 19, 2024

Wait where are you getting that his primary job is working for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy? Wiki and his LinkedIn bio both list him as executive director of something called Project Unified Assisitance. The institute’s website appears to have published a total of three pieces by him over the course of seven years, and I’m not finding anything saying he’s employed by them or officially affiliated with them. He may in fact be a shill but I am missing where you’re getting that an arm of AIPAC is paying his bills.

Go to the PUA website and check it out, then do a little investigating— it seems like the organization’s 501c3 status has been revoked by the IRS, and the website simply reprints excerpts or articles reiterating western and Israeli talking points. If he is a consultant, that’s whatever, but consider that the man has never written for a single Palestinian or Middle Eastern publication, just outfits like the Washington Institute, the right-libertarian Liberty Fund, and so on.

That said, it isn’t clear that he works for the Washington Institute, so my apologies for stating as much. But it is clear that he is a shill— I mean, the Liberty Fund has been credited with paving the way for Reagan’s election in 1980. If the guy wasn’t Palestinian, no one on this board would give him or his opinions the time of day, and he would be totally excoriated. He should still be totally excoriated, though!

I thought he worked at something called GiveWell.

Project Unified Assistance seems to have ended in 2022.

Washington Institute does seem to have a lot of conservatives on its board.

This caught my eye in the Wiki for Washington Institute:

Dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi participated in an institute forum in November 2016 in which he stated that Saudi Arabia should be "rightfully nervous about the Trump presidency," according to The Economist.[22] The magazine reported that Saudi authorities asked Khashoggi to stop writing after the institute appearance but the journalist chose to live in exile instead. He was assassinated in Istanbul in 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate.

I mean I don't mind if people want to take issue with his ideas. I think he's against purity politics, as he thinks it is not pragmatic and you only need to read what I paraphrased on to know that as well.

Taking issue with facts or statements or ideas is not the same saying we should be "excoriating" certain people ad hominem though. It seems like the paradox of tolerance.

Pointing out bias is also fine. I've seen people saying Al-Jazeera is Qatar state media, and there's a risk in taking their reporting at face value. Same as the Guardian, the BBC, all these sources. I still look at them though. Not sure what "pro-Israel" means to you. Is Ilhan Omar "pro-Israel" to you because she said she'll obviously still support Biden this November despite strongly criticizing US policy?

Sorry, how is the BBC biased?

All media have a bias. I think the BBC are considered to have a center bias in general. On certain issues, they are rated as having other biases.

What issues?

Some people do say the BBC is biased, true.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/14/bbc-building-red-paint-protest-israel-hamas-coverage