From: Ken Bawcom (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2009 - 18:44:20 PST
I have read this thread with interest, but stayed out until now. It
was using the Spanish Civil War anti-fascist slogan "No pasaran" in
this context that drove me over the edge.
A few facts:
In June of 2007, Israel instituted a blockade of the Gaza Strip, to
punish them for electing Hamas, in free and fair elections. A blockade
is universally recognized as an act of war. Before the blockade,
better that 98% of Gaza residents had running water, and sewage
service. Now, 50% are without regular access to water, and 75% don't
have sewage service. That is just a couple of problems the blockade
has caused. Doubtless many have died as a result of this blockade, but
I haven't been able to locate a figure.
One year later, on June 19th, 2008, a negotiated truce between Hamas
and Israel began. It was supposed to end the blockade, and the
rockets. This resulted in a 98% reduction in rocket fire, by the IDF's
own figures. Israel refused to lift the blockade. Hamas said the truce
would be over, 6 months from its start, unless the blockade was
lifted. On Nov. 4th, Israel did a military incursion into Gaza, and
killed 6 Hamas soldiers. The rockets began again.
In the current war on the people of Gaza, Israel attacked a UN school.
First, they said they had received fire from the school. Later, they
changed their story, and said it had been an accident. The UN had sent
the GPS coordinates of that school, and many other UN facilities to
Israel, to avoid such attacks.
A couple of days later, Israel bombed the UN headquarters in Gaza,
using incendiary white phosphorus bombs, destroying all UN food and
medicine relief supplies in Gaza.
On 1/17, Israel bombed a UN elementary school, using 4 white
phosphorus bombs, and artillery shells. White phosphorus is worse than
napalm. It sticks to human flesh, and burns to the bone. It is
considered illegal to use on humans. Israel claims they don't use it,
or use it only to light things up at night, depending on which
spokesman is talking. It has been reported by numerous news agencies,
and US munitions experts, that they ARE using it. Again, they claimed
they were fired upon from the school, despite all the witness who said
not.
Israel has destroyed almost all Palestinian government facilities in
Gaza, including police stations, and the Parliament.
Now, some opinion:
I don't really believe most claims of "being fired on" as an excuse
for attacking UN facilities, hospitals, schools, and Mosques. But,
let's say it is true, a Palestinian "terrorist," or "defender of his
people," which ever way you see it, was firing from an Israeli
elementary school. Do you think the IDF would bomb it with
incendiaries, and shell it? I think not. Therefore, I find such
actions on the part of Israel to be racist, immoral, brutal, and evil.
If the real goal was to end the rocket fire from Gaza, all Israel had
to do is remove its illegal blockade. Now, Hamas' ability to enforce a
ceasefire, against numerous other anti-Israel factions in Gaza, has
been severely degraded. I believe that this whole operation was done
by the current Israeli gov. because of the approaching elections. The
polls show it has been effective in raising their popularity.
I don't think the people of Israel are any better, or any worse, than
the people of the US. We have all been led to support murderous,
illegal, and evil actions by our leaders. I will always remember that
one MILLION Israelis turned out to protest the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres.
Ken B.
Quoting malgosia askanas <email suppressed>:
> Chris,
>
> You are putting up an ill-defined strawman and then fighting it.
> When you say
>
>> However, when you go into ³judeophobia², you are getting
>> ridiculous. Itıs a lot like when Bill Oıreilly questions the
>> patriotism of an American who does not believe in waterboarding or
>> the war in Iraq.
>
> , I don't think that whatever it is that you call "ridiculous" and
> refer to as "it" can be found in any of my posts in this thread.
> You're second-guessing me, which is an instant recipe for a boring
> non-event.
>
> But OK, I'll engage with some of what you say. First, judeophobia
> is not per se about race (as it was cast by the Nureberg laws or the
> laws of Tzarist Russia), or religion (as it was cast by the
> Inquisition), or ideology (as it was cast in the Soviet block).
> Judeophobia is Jew-hatred - however it is cast, it is simply and
> solely about hating Jews. Many Jew-haters have never seen a Jew,
> couldn't articulate what they mean by "Jew", and wouldn't recognize
> one of they saw one; nonetheless they "know" that "Jews" are rats
> and pigs, that they commit ritual murders, that they conspire to
> take over the world, that they are responsible for all the world's
> woes, that they defile and ruin whatever comes near them, and so on.
>
> Second, judeophobia is very much alive in the world, and is in fact
> on the rise. And, as anybody who follows current events knows very
> well, it is very, very present in the current protest demonstrations
> "against the war in Gaza". Slogans like "Go back to the ovens" or
> "Hitler didn't finish the job"; attacks on Jews, boycotts of stores
> owned by Jews - these are NOT criticisms of, or protests against,
> the errors of a state or a nation - these are, plain and simple,
> abominablel expressions of Jew-hatred. And you can see a large
> array of such events reported in, for instance
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=230
>
> Given these realities, which have persisted for centuries and should
> be well-known to any "cultured" individual, I would say that YES
> (bingo!), anobody who thinks that it is acceptable to discourse on
> the matter by burping out slogans like "Abolish the state of Israel"
> or "A replay of the Warsaw ghetto" is ipso facto aligning hirself
> with judeophobes. These burps are not "critiques" and they are not
> "subject positions" - they are either thoughtless, ignorant
> regurgitations or something worse. And usually, if you scratch,
> it's precisely something worse. Always the same old worse thing.
>
>
>> You argued before that you like to keep things on the level of
>> ³facts². But then you decide via Foucault that the other argumentıs
>> subject position is unable to speak towards facts because their
>> context either puts them outside of the argument altogether or,
>> even worse, is some self-hating paradigm that creates an added
>> level of victimization (³you canıt agree with me because your
>> historical context has made you hate your own people²).
>
> I never said any such thing.
>
>> The problem with throwing perceived subject positions into the
>> arguments is that it makes it impossible to discuss because both
>> sides assume that the other person is saying something because of a
>> hidden position. We then make conjectures about the otherıs subject
>> position that, honestly, if actually spoken, would smack of racism.
>> Me saying, ³you take this position b/c of this & this & this² and
>> you saying, ³you take this position b/c of this & this & this²
>> would be rather insulting and juvenile. Itıs why some of the
>> discussion on this listserv has gotten out of hand.
>
>
> Well, the remedy to this is: either speak from, and with, knowledge,
> thought and understanding, or don't speak. People who speak from
> knowledge, thought and understanding don't speak in slogans. And
> with those who insist on speaking in slogans, there can be no
> pactuation. They put themselves in a position to which the only
> response is "No passaran".
>
>
>> I would hope that one would be able to transcend oneıs
>> historical/Foucauldian subject position to potentially see the
>> other side (rather than bomb it).
>> But even if one canıt, then I would stretch the argument to say
>> that not only is the violence in Gaza (on both sides) killing
>> bodies, but itıs really f*cking up future subject positions for the
>> both of them. Clearly it is not the appropriate solution to the
>> problem.
>
>
> It is not a solution to any problem, but I am afraid it is precisely
> what's happening.
>
>
> -m
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
"Those who would give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty, nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin 1775
"I know that the hypnotized never lie... Do ya?"
Pete Townshend 1971
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.