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

it's a real shame what these clowns have done to postone's legacy and reputation - the german left could really have learnt a lot from his work instead of using it as a kind of intellectual fig leaf for their weird offbrand version of german nativism

I didn't realise how specifically maoist their tendency's origins were (since one of the strangest things about them these days is how hard they are to distinguish from the mainstream) which is an awkward fit with the postonean stuff (his anti-stalinism was strong enough to occasionally take him to borderline reactionary places) (then again maybe he was their way out) but if that's their background their predilection for physically assaulting ("other") leftists makes a lot more sense

I need to stop with the brackets

Are they the only group that has Maoist tendencies that is pro-Israel? Most of the ones I encounter are borderline Soros=New Rothschild major anti-semitism vibes

I doubt they have maoist tendencies now (other than violence and the whole chauvinism in the name of its opposite thing) but you can mao yourself into basically any position by changing what the primary contradiction in society is and enforcing the new line on your cadre and then the world. most actual maoists I'm aware of are more "anti-zionist" than anti-capitalist right now but I wouldn't put it past them to switch those priorities at some point either

I would guess the antideutsche also have some interesting views on soros and probably think he's more of a nazi than their grandparents were

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/19/canada-halt-arms-sales-to-israel

can someone explain to me "Reality Israel"? asking because someone i know posted on Instagram how they were "given the opportunity to visit Israel" through this service and they shared photos, videos, etc of the experience. as someone who has great sympathy for those who died, injured, or otherwise traumatized on Oct 7, and who is sensitive to some of the more dog-whistley criticisms of Israel (though NOT the actually relevant, cold hard facts of the ongoing atrocity criticisms), i found it a bit distasteful and tone-deaf. one video showed a group of what amounted to tourists walking through and filming a bullet-hole filled kibbutz where i'm sure people died, followed by a cheerful group photo, followed by a long dining table where i guess everyone ate and chatted. the accompanying text was full of detail about how supposedly both sides were heard, but it felt one-sided, underscored by its conclusion to "release the hostages, eliminate Hamas, ceasefire" (apparently a suggestion of what order things should be done in.) lots of replies in the comments such as, "love you brother" and "so much this" and heart emojis and "good of you to bear witness". and while i am COMPLETELY on board with getting those hostages back, on board with seeing Hamas gone (and Netanyahu just as gone, since both sides deserve so much better), i was just taken aback by the post for some reason. and then one voice crying out in the comments, "we won't even talk about how you're going there for a nice meal while children in Gaza are starving and dying?" it did feel a bit like "i want to live like common traumatized people" on one hand, and atrocity tourism on the other, and so self-centered in the manner in which it was communicated. and disappointing. i didn't engage with the post, i know it's a very sensitive topic in general and it's a can of worms i choose not to open via social media.

i write all that as someone who again is vv sensitive to and sometimes disappointed in a bit of the ol ILX rhetoric surrounding these terrible events, which i won't get into now but just placing myself where i belong in the discourse.

It isn't a can of worms. The person you know doesn't care that 30,000+ Palestinians have been killed, and advertised it for their friend group to see. What else is there to know except that the person you know is not a good person?

yeah i've never thought this was a particularly good person. it was more interesting to see it as an example of grassroots propaganda of the type i've seen a lot of on social media and wondered if that group was part of a larger effort to engage in it, i don't know anything about it.

It sounds like a Birthright tour, but for adults.

https://www.schusterman.org/reality

The Schusterman family were among the founders of Birthright Israel, and made their fortune investing in petroleum products. Basically, and ultra-Zionist Koch Brothers

When she is not working, she can be found cooking Israeli recipes (and destroying a few kitchens in the process)

the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philantropies is behind the REALITY trips, which actually have just been cut going forward (https://www.yahoo.com/news/schusterman-cuts-reality-trips-leadership-124752133.html). they are also co-founders of Birthright Israel.

The trips themselves are geared at people with platforms and influence, mostly, to help use their experience to enact social change. One trip indicates "Through this journey, you will go beyond the headlines and sound bites to explore the richness and complexity of Israel firsthand while strengthening your abilities to engage in challenging conversations across lines of difference."

the program seems geared at countering some of the conversations and what they feel are misconceptions about Israel - I don't think their specific goal is to influence discourse regarding past and current conflicts, but I would guess the type of people they approve to go on these REALITY tours are probably people with viewpoints similar to the person you know. particularly since the Israel Institute, which they founded, has been accused of influencing institutions to minimize criticism of Israel.

so perhaps not their overall goal, but "hey, people are shitting on Bibi/Israel, would you like to see the real Israel instead of the lies the mainstream media shares" is probably a unstated secondary goal

xxxposts lol....looks like we all posted fragments of the same

They infect people with hasbara talking points and then send them back to manufacture consent through their platforms and networks

Sorry not sorry to be harsh, not in the mood to entertain niceties about what the real goals of these organizations are.

don't think the goals I stated are very nice goals! i'm essentially in agreement with you

btw the can of worms comment was simply me stating i didn't comment on that post on IG, i didn't want to open a can of worms in terms of getting into it.

understandable, sorry to misinterpret

one of the biggest anti-Trump "take back our country from fascism" guys I knew, I had to eventually delete because his response to the Palestinian deaths, unsolicited, was "don't lots of people always die in war?"

in war, both sides have usually consented to fight and have arms to fight with, but idk ymmv rando asshole

no prob table, it's a pretty volatile topic and you ain't gotta worry about what you say to me, you've got exceptionally valuable insight

otm

in war, both sides have usually consented to fight and have arms to fight with, but idk ymmv rando asshole

I don't know if thats generally true, I think in many wars have an asymmetry about them, where one sides decides they'll have some or all of what the other side has. The other side usually has to consent to fight because the alternative is often even worse

I was meaning to contrast that with describing 'war' as people who are fleeing bombs when they were just trying to go to work or shelter

Yeah I was gonna say - I don't think most wars start because two countries sit down together and decide to have a war. Also, Hamas sought to provoke war, hoping that Hezbollah (and possibly others) would join in.

Yeah … though

_in war, both sides have usually consented to fight and have arms to fight with, but idk ymmv rando asshole_

I don't know if thats generally true, I think in many wars have an asymmetry about them, where one sides decides they'll have some or all of what the other side has. The other side usually has to consent to fight because the alternative is often even worse

I was meaning to contrast that with describing 'war' as people who are fleeing bombs when they were just trying to go to work or shelter

― CEO Greedwagon (Neanderthal), Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:20 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I still don't really understand what you mean tbh. Dude was still an asshat for what he said, but the civilians hurt in war are typically not the ones consenting to war.

Like I talked about it with my mom who remembers watching the death count and bodybags of the Vietnam war on tv every night and how that motivated her, my family, and many other people to be peace activists because war is horrible and the atrocities happening in Palestine are common to wars. I feel like there is a generational difference here, where many Americans born here under 50 haven’t really seen this before…

It makes me want to reread Baudrillard’s The Gulf War book

I think the truth of the matter here is that this is not really a war. Hamas had an offensive 6 months ago, but since then it's just been the occupying power getting revenge by killing as many civilians and destroying as many buildings as possible.

I listened through the Blowback series on Iraq recently, pretty horrifying even as someone who was generally paying attention to what the US was doing both between the two wars and during the second Iraq war. xp

I think the truth of the matter here is that this is not really a war. Hamas had an offensive 6 months ago, but since then it's just been the occupying power getting revenge by killing as many civilians and destroying as many buildings as possible.

― President Keyes, Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:32 PM (twenty-nine seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

I mean, Hamas has an armed militia of tens of thousands in Gaza, it's not like there's no one fighting. It's certainly not an even fight, but there has been fighting.

It’s similar to Vietnam in that Hamas is somewhat a spectre where civilians can be portrayed as possible members or sympathizers, giving Israel the “excuse” to kill and destroy

No idea if there's fighting going on or not because Israel won't let any reporters in and they're incapable of telling the truth.

Hamas itself posts combat footage, although IDK what's going on currently

I think the truth of the matter here is that this is not really a war. Hamas had an offensive 6 months ago, but since then it's just been the occupying power getting revenge by killing as many civilians and destroying as many buildings as possible.

― President Keyes, Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:32 PM bookmarkflaglink

this is what I was admittedly clumsily getting at, my 'friend' wasn't saying "lots of civilians die in war", he was saying in war, soldiers die, it's expected, and he's treating civilians and Hamas fighters interchangably, when it's not a war, it's one country basically assaulting the Gaza strip with a litter of bombs and attacking unarmed civilians directly and have made the land unlivable already.

even if his point was "civilian casualties are an inevitability of war", the point wouldn't scan because they aren't even collateral damage, they're being targeted.

even the battle with Hamas and Israel I hardly consider a war.

or at least...not now.

According to Israel (lol) they've killed 12,000 Hamas fighters, so I'vw no idea how many that leaves.

“It’s war people die so what” is the ingrained response of an American who has lived with “collateral damage” their entire life as the phrase that differentiates between us killing innocent people and the bad guys who do it on purpose.

more tellingly, his opinion about the Iraq war and the number of innocent people killed was decidedly different

I think the “so what” part is the problem. I think that people who are the most outspoken protesting against the atrocities are assuming that those who are less visibly outraged are saying “so what” when that isn’t entirely true

Whereas at least for most people I know it’s not “so what” it’s “that’s fucked up”

Didn't we just see civilians in Ukraine targeted yesterday? I don't understand where 'Americans haven't seen this before' is coming from when we were seeing it on the news every day already.

I don't think civilians in wars are always targeted, (and it can be to varying degrees), but we don't have to go back very far to see examples of it all over TV even in the week or so before Oct 7.

Assad definitely targeted civilians in Syria

Good point!

One clear point of difference at present between Gaza and some of these other situations is the use of starvation as a weapon against civilians (plus the razing of 35% of Gaza's buildings). It's obviously not unprecedented historically, but it does make expressions of indifference or cynical "it is what it is" type sentiments even more repellent imo

Well, not unprecedented with respect to Syria.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/11/syria-surrender-or-starve-strategy-displacing-thousands-amounts-to-crimes-against-humanity/

sure, but until recently most people likely wouldn't have thought of Israel as obviously similar to Syria. If the point is that any nation that goes to war will inevitably commit atrocities and descend into barbarism, I might actually agree with you, but I think it's safe to say that previously Western attitudes to Israel considered it to be on a higher moral plane than the Syrias of the world

One clear point of difference at present between Gaza and some of these other situations is the use of starvation as a weapon against civilians (plus the razing of 35% of Gaza's buildings). It's obviously not unprecedented historically, but it does make expressions of indifference or cynical "it is what it is" type sentiments even more repellent imo