Israeli plans to cut off east Jerusalem?

167 posts / 0 new
Last post
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 3 2008 22:01

As far as I know C18 are neo-nazis/, SNP simply nationalist so it's a bit different. Though both are bourgeoisie. I take it from your question that you put zionism is the same boat as C18?

I don't see why you see Palestinian and Jewish/Israeli nationalism as something different, other than that the Palestinian is the one that happens to be the oppressed and not the oppressor.

Yes, it is horrible that Palestinians are being killed, maimed, arrested, dehumanized etc. etc. on a daily basis, and of course it is simply only natural for Palestinians to fight back and bla bla bla. But what is your point other than moral posturing? That communists should support someone's nationalism over the solidarity of the working class on both sides of the apartheid wall?

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 3 2008 23:55
Khawaga wrote:
As far as I know C18 are neo-nazis/, SNP simply nationalist so it's a bit different. Though both are bourgeoisie. I take it from your question that you put zionism is the same boat as C18?

I don't see why you see Palestinian and Jewish/Israeli nationalism as something different, other than that the Palestinian is the one that happens to be the oppressed and not the oppressor.

Yes, it is horrible that Palestinians are being killed, maimed, arrested, dehumanized etc. etc. on a daily basis, and of course it is simply only natural for Palestinians to fight back and bla bla bla. But what is your point other than moral posturing? That communists should support someone's nationalism over the solidarity of the working class on both sides of the apartheid wall?

No, it's not as different as you seem to think. Yes, C 18 are neo - natzis. Just like the zionist occupiers of stolen land are a bunch of zio -neo -natzi's, and the nationalists amongst Palestinian victims, tend to simply want to regain what has been stolen from them, some even willing to accept 1968 borders. As though having some state more than no state, is reason enough to recognise a neighbouring state, which depends on genocide to exist, as having a right to exist. The zionist movement as a whole, is far worse than C 18. How many do you think C 18 have murdered this week ? And in principle, the worst of each must be comparable. Have a look at the Kahanist movement.

Well for one thing the oppressor, is also the aggressor, who also, depends on conflict to maintain a militarist society, which it needs to survive, and can always be relied on to renew conflict even when Palestinians are exhausted. Just look at the incessant settlement expansion. Look at ISM vids showing zionist kiddies following Palestinian kiddies, adults and ISM volunteers, and assaulting them with rocks, under the protection of the Israeli Death Force . And zio farmers thieving/burning ancient olive bushes. etc,etc,etc, with the occaisional massacre, and frequent individual murders in between. I don't know if Palestinians would be as bad, or how long it would take for them to stop wanting revenge, if they had the same resources. But I know it could never have been this bad before the zionist invasions after 1945. And I know that as long as neo natzi scum rule over them, beginning to lose the hate can't start. And I know that while this British government, some of its companies and shoppers are accomplices in such terror, Palestinians should be angry at those of us who let it happen.
For aparthied to exist, it has to depend on the victims. Their presence, is required. The presence of Palestinians, is not required. Zionism requires the opposite, the removal of its victims, or the killing of them. In order to get them to remove themselves, it has to make life unbearable for them. Part of this, is to kill many, convincing many, that to stay, will have many in future being killed, and that much of the outside world doesn't give a shit. That means killing them because of what they are. That makes it . . . . . . .genocide. An accomplice in genocide, is, to some degree, a participant in genocide. And people who act as though there's some sort of moral equivalence between the perpetrators, and the victims, are making the job of those of us who believe in giving more than a shit, that much more difficult to motivate anyone else to give more than a shit. Where's my toilet paper?

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Aug 3 2008 23:53

Not gonna get into this argument except to say I agree with what Khawaga and others are saying, but:

John Somebody, you do realise neo-nazis are a very specific thing, right? IE - Someone who believes that what Hitler tried to do was essentially correct, and pushes for a similar politic today. Zionists are Zionists - I'm in Israel at the moment, and in the past I've spent quite some time here, and I have yet to meet anyone who believes in Israel as a Jewish state AND simultaneously believes that what Hitler tried to do was essentially correct, which is the only thing I can assume a "zio -neo -natzi" (and there's no t in nazi, too) is.

</polite>

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 01:24
Asher wrote:
Not gonna get into this argument except to say I agree with what Khawaga and others are saying, but:

John Somebody, you do realise neo-nazis are a very specific thing, right? IE - Someone who believes that what Hitler tried to do was essentially correct, and pushes for a similar politic today. .

</polite>

Where is this innacurate. Neo natzism,(with or without a "t", is a development from what natzi ism was. Its practitioners, I'm sure would say, it's taken an evolutionary step forward. It has I suppose, mutated. When zio thugs defend their beliefs, by accusing me of being a natzi, and I rebuff such a lie by informing them of various anti - natzi, and anti- racist actions I've performed of course, I know that's not enough. Because I know, that everything evolves, even political movements, and have to, to survive. Zio - neo nasties displaying ordinary fascist piggery next to the M&S picket in London, were accompanied some time ago, by the B.N.P., and the Hindu B.J.P. They had found common cause, and their racism had mutated to the point where they could co - operate, against a bunch of lefties. The B.N.P. won votes in recent elections,apparently, because they were able to adapt. Still being called natzis, even though many of their grass roots seem not to understand, or believe in a natzi connection. So, for you to say that neo - natzism remains the "very specific thing" that it was, at any bit in time that suits your sensibilities, or theories, is to divorce yourself from the facts of evolution.
All right, maybe I've still got something wrong about it. But I've identified a certain fundamental quality, of natzism (which is state practitioning of genocide or support for it), which is continuous throughout later editions of natzism. Therefore state practitioners of genocide, and their lackies, could surely be accurately described as neo -natzis. What's wrong with that ? This is not to claim that state practitioning of genocide didn't happen before 1933. But at Nuremburg it was given a label.
Hang on. . . . .. By, ". . . . what Hitler tried to do, was essentially correct", do you mean, in essence, the state practitioning of. . . . . .you've guessed it ? Well ?

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 01:35
Joseph K. wrote:
i mean, seems you're taking a bit of a hostile approach which is hardly likely to attract the serious discussion you profess to want. i mean i haven't seen you post about the plight of *insert obscure oppressed population here* , do you just not give a shit? see what i mean?

So, if people in the next street to you were regularly being raped and murdered, but your household couldn't afford a new tele, would you be saying to anyone, who wanted to do anything about it ,"Yes, that's a pity what's happening over there, but, "do you just not give a shit", about the poor oppressed population here ? How do you arrive at your priorities ?

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 01:33
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Quote:
Or does noone give a shit about the plight of palestinians on this site?

What exactly do you propose I or any other poster who isn't from palestine is supposed to do about this particular act of oppression?

Doesn't that depend on what/how much you're already doing ?

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Aug 4 2008 05:49
John Somebody wrote:
All right, maybe I've still got something wrong about it. But I've identified a certain fundamental quality, of natzism (which is state practitioning of genocide or support for it), which is continuous throughout later editions of natzism. Therefore state practitioners of genocide, and their lackies, could surely be accurately described as neo -natzis. What's wrong with that ? This is not to claim that state practitioning of genocide didn't happen before 1933. But at Nuremburg it was given a label.

I think this is very confused. Many states have carried out genocide before Nazism existed and have carried out genocide since in situations that are not comparable to the Nazis (this isn't really the place for a discussion of the historical specificity of the Holocaust, but all genocides are not the same). Moreover, most neo-Nazi groups are fringe sects or violent street gangs, not lackies of state genocide. With the consolidation and re-organization of the 'white power' milieu by the Ron Paul campaign here in the US, politics that could sort of be described as neo-nazi (but more accurately as far-right populist) have been given a place in the mainstream political discourse, but the way you're presenting the phenomena of neo-nazism is totally mystifying and does not help understand what's actually going on.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 06:28
John Somebody wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
i mean, seems you're taking a bit of a hostile approach which is hardly likely to attract the serious discussion you profess to want. i mean i haven't seen you post about the plight of *insert obscure oppressed population here* , do you just not give a shit? see what i mean?

So, if people in the next street to you were regularly being raped and murdered, but your household couldn't afford a new tele, would you be saying to anyone, who wanted to do anything about it ,"Yes, that's a pity what's happening over there, but, "do you just not give a shit", about the poor oppressed population here ? How do you arrive at your priorities ?

well given as my point was that geographical distance and different socio-politico-economic context limits an ability to be an effective agent of change as an outsider, and you've just removed all those elements from your counter-example, i'm not sure what your point is? and zionists clearly aren't neo-nazis, unless you're just using it as a standard leftist term of abuse. israel is essentially a liberal capitalist democracy (with state of emergency laws like any other), don't let them off the hook by labelling them 'nazi'.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 4 2008 10:34
John Somebody wrote:
All right, maybe I've still got something wrong about it. But I've identified a certain fundamental quality, of natzism (which is state practitioning of genocide or support for it), which is continuous throughout later editions of natzism. Therefore state practitioners of genocide, and their lackies, could surely be accurately described as neo -natzis. What's wrong with that ? This is not to claim that state practitioning of genocide didn't happen before 1933. But at Nuremburg it was given a label.

That's hardly unique to nazis is it? nor is it the only thing nazis have in common, so if you use the word nazi in that way it begins to mean "someone I dont like"
People don't need to be nazis for us to oppose them and what they do. I don't see how calling everyone who does things you don't like a nazi helps any argument you are trying to make.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 4 2008 10:53
John Somebody wrote:
And I know that while this British government, some of its companies and shoppers are accomplices in such terror, Palestinians should be angry at those of us who let it happen.

shoppers?

John Somebody wrote:
An accomplice in genocide, is, to some degree, a participant in genocide. And people who act as though there's some sort of moral equivalence between the perpetrators, and the victims, are making the job of those of us who believe in giving more than a shit, that much more difficult to motivate anyone else to give more than a shit.

Who are the accomplices to genocide you refer to?
Its difficult to follow what you write but here it seems you are saying that to consider Israeli and Palestine nationalism as basically the same, is to make a moral equivalence between the victims and the perpetrators.
This is not the case, Palestinians are not one homogenous block and nether are Israelis, and for most of both populations nationalism is opposed to there interests.
The fact that the Israeli military and settlers attack ordinary Palestinians doesn't mean that ordinary Palestinians have some thing in common with "there" bourgeois.

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 5 2008 00:23
yoshomon wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
. . . . . . . a certain fundamental quality, of natzism (which is state practitioning of genocide or support for it), which is continuous throughout later editions of natzism. . . . . . . . This is not to claim that state practitioning of genocide didn't happen before 1933. But at Nuremburg it was given a label.

I think this is very confused. Many states have carried out genocide before Nazism existed and have carried out genocide since in situations that are not comparable to the Nazis. . . . . . . ( but all genocides are not the same). .

Yes, I think you're confused. Perhaps, I shoud have said, fundamental, and therefore DEFINING quality of natzism.
Also, I hoped to pre-empt your confusion by stating the bit about, "before 1933". The fact that examples of something can have happened before they were given a label, as at Nuremburg, does not detract from the facts as to whether they are examples of it. And the fact that not all genocides are the same, does not detract from the fact, as to whether they are sanctioned by the state.

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 12:40
Joseph K. wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
i mean, seems you're taking a bit of a hostile approach which is hardly likely to attract the serious discussion you profess to want. i mean i haven't seen you post about the plight of *insert obscure oppressed population here* , do you just not give a shit? see what i mean?

So, if people in the next street to you were regularly being raped and murdered, but your household couldn't afford a new tele, would you be saying to anyone, who wanted to do anything about it ,"Yes, that's a pity what's happening over there, but, "do you just not give a shit", about the poor oppressed population here ? How do you arrive at your priorities ?

well given as my point was that geographical distance and different socio-politico-economic context limits an ability to be an effective agent of change as an outsider, and you've just removed all those elements from your counter-example, i'm not sure what your point is? and zionists clearly aren't neo-nazis, unless you're just using it as a standard leftist term of abuse. israel is essentially a liberal capitalist democracy (with state of emergency laws like any other), don't let them off the hook by labelling them 'nazi'.

Of course distance limits what we can do, about anything. That some people see that it's not enough to stop us doing something, (boycotts, for example), is not a reason to criticise them for doing more than not giving, " a shit ". That just makes you sound like your trying to appease your conscience, or maybe to undermine such a campaign, without being honest about your reasons.
And zionists clearly are neo - natzis, if state practicing / sanctioning of genocide, is a fundamental, defining factor of natzism, and neo means its a mutation of the original. Don't try to get them "off the hook", by pretending that they're not neo - natzi's
The "liberal capitallist democracy" you talk of could not exist, let alone create an artificial zionist majority, to defend the pretence of democracy in elections, without genocidal ethnic "cleansing" in the first place, and over 60 years. Are you going to tell me that genocide is a democratic way to create a zionist majority ?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 4 2008 12:00
John Somebody wrote:
And zionists clearly are neo - natzis, if state practicing / sanctioning of genocide, is a fundamental, defining factor of natzism,

But its not.

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 12:18
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
And I know that while this British government, some of its companies and shoppers are accomplices in such terror, Palestinians should be angry at those of us who let it happen.

shoppers?

John Somebody wrote:
An accomplice in genocide, is, to some degree, a participant in genocide. And people who act as though there's some sort of moral equivalence between the perpetrators, and the victims, are making the job of those of us who believe in giving more than a shit, that much more difficult to motivate anyone else to give more than a shit.

Who are the accomplices to genocide you refer to?
Its difficult to follow what you write but here it seems you are saying that to consider Israeli and Palestine nationalism as basically the same, is to make a moral equivalence between the victims and the perpetrators.
This is not the case, Palestinians are not one homogenous block and nether are Israelis, and for most of both populations nationalism is opposed to there interests.
The fact that the Israeli military and settlers attack ordinary Palestinians doesn't mean that ordinary Palestinians have some thing in common with "there" bourgeois.

Shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state. Or if not deliberately going out of their way to buy from to support them, just not giving a shit, as to whether or not that's actually happening
Good grief, no, I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying one side are the aggressors, and the others, no matter how derranged with anger, grief, and bitterness the've become, would not retalliate, sometimes irrationally, without the original and continuing, persisting, provocative racist scummery. No I'm not saying there's moral equivalence between them. I'm saying the opposite, again. The victims, Israeli, and Palestinian, are victims of the persistant aggresive provocateurs -- zionists.
Where have I said that Palestinians are homogenous, other than in being Palestinian victims, or that Israelis are, especially as many are refusers, and some are even active at providing information against zio thuggery, to the world. That's even if they don't accept that a state/society which depends on genocide to exist, has no right to exist.. Where have i said that ? And of course, nationalism is opposed to everyone's interests.
If state homicide bombers, are about to demolish my home or town with me inside , then I have, "something in common " with everyone inside whether bourgoisie, grief stricken, derranged jihadi's, or anyone else

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 12:24
John Somebody wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
And I know that while this British government, some of its companies and shoppers are accomplices in such terror, Palestinians should be angry at those of us who let it happen.

shoppers?

John Somebody wrote:
An accomplice in genocide, is, to some degree, a participant in genocide. And people who act as though there's some sort of moral equivalence between the perpetrators, and the victims, are making the job of those of us who believe in giving more than a shit, that much more difficult to motivate anyone else to give more than a shit.

Who are the accomplices to genocide you refer to?
Its difficult to follow what you write but here it seems you are saying that to consider Israeli and Palestine nationalism as basically the same, is to make a moral equivalence between the victims and the perpetrators.
This is not the case, Palestinians are not one homogenous block and nether are Israelis, and for most of both populations nationalism is opposed to there interests.
The fact that the Israeli military and settlers attack ordinary Palestinians doesn't mean that ordinary Palestinians have some thing in common with "there" bourgeois.

Accomplices ??? As I've just said, British government, some British companies, and, yes, shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state. Or if not deliberately going out of their way to buy from and support them, just not giving a shit, as to whether or not that's actually happening.
Good grief, no, I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying one side are the aggressors, and the others, no matter how derranged with anger, grief, and bitterness the've become, would not retalliate, sometimes irrationally, without the original and continuing, persisting, provocative racist scummery. No I'm not saying there's moral equivalence between them. I'm saying the opposite, again. The victims, Israeli, and Palestinian, are victims of the persistant aggresive provocateurs -- zionists.
Where have I said that Palestinians are homogenous, other than in being Palestinian victims, or that Israelis are, especially as many are refusers, and some are even active at providing information against zio thuggery, to the world. That's even if they don't accept that a state/society which depends on genocide to exist, has no right to exist.. Where have i said that ? And of course, nationalism is opposed to everyone's interests.
If state homicide bombers, are about to demolish my home or town with me inside , then I have, "something in common " with everyone inside whether bourgoisie, grief stricken, derranged jihadi's, or anyone else

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 12:31
John Somebody wrote:
is not a reason to criticise them for doing more than not giving, " a shit ". That just makes you sound like your trying to appease your conscience, or maybe to undermine such a campaign, without being honest for your reasons.

read the thread. people here in general were accused of 'not giving a shit', i responded that what't happening in palestine is shit, but there's not a lot we can do about it, and perhaps the best way to help would be in building and excercising some real collective power here. i'm not sure what you think i'm saying...

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 12:42
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
And zionists clearly are neo - natzis, if state practicing / sanctioning of genocide, is a fundamental, defining factor of natzism,

But its not.

Don't simply say, " But it's not ", as though I'm supposed to accept your decree. Tell me why

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 12:45
John Somebody wrote:
The victims, Israeli, and Palestinian, are victims of the persistant aggresive provocateurs -- zionists.

this simply isn't true, islamists and various nationalists from Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah etc all have agendas of their own which are no more dependent on zionism than zionism is on them (arguably they all need each other). pinning all the blame on 'zionists' lets reactionary islamists and nationalists off the hook whilst simultaneously denying them any agency. none of these forces represent anything positive for the working class in the region, and they should all be rejected and condemned, even while their differing agendas and power-bases are understood.

John Somebody wrote:
yes, shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state.

i've occasionally bought israeli produce, so this includes me. do you think i'm an accomplice to genocide? really? i'm also a UK taxpayer, and as you say the UK are supporters of Israel (and Fatah for that matter, via the EU), so i'm 'implicated' there too. oh noes. i mean name me a capitalist state it is OK to 'support' by consuming goods. capitalism is based on exploitation, dispossession and misery, and so ethical consumption is at best a luxury conscience reliever for the wealthy and in practice an impossibility. i mean, am i 'an accomplice to sweatshops' for wearing clothes? or 'an accomplice to the banks' for using my overdraft?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 4 2008 12:51
Quote:
Look at ISM vids showing zionist kiddies following Palestinian kiddies, adults and ISM volunteers, and assaulting them with rocks, under the protection of the Israeli Death Force . And zio farmers thieving/burning ancient olive bushes. etc,etc,etc,

I've been with the ISM in Palestine twice; I've seen kids getting shot, beaten up, arrested, harassed and just generally Palestinians being fucked over by the occupation. In my work with ISM I have been beaten up and been shot at several times. You on the other hand is just typing nonsense online, nonsense that doesn't even get the basics of the conflict right.

Quote:
and the nationalists amongst Palestinian victims, tend to simply want to regain what has been stolen from them, some even willing to accept 1968 borders.

some of the nationalists that I know in Palestine wants to throw all the jews into the med. not all, but some. In general those Palestinians that have contact with Israelis tend to be ok with them, others to hate them (especially in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Gaza, and even more so in the refugee camps in those places). Most people in Palestine will be happy with the 67 borders.

Quote:
The zionist movement as a whole, is far worse than C 18. How many do you think C 18 have murdered this week ? And in principle, the worst of each must be comparable. Have a look at the Kahanist movement.

What is the Zionist movement? Are you referring to the Israeli state? Pre 48 Zionists? Those Zionists in Gush Shalom?

Quote:
But I know it could never have been this bad before the zionist invasions after 1945.

Jewish colonialism of Transjordan started in the late 19th century. You know that there were lots of problems with Jews and Arabs before 1948? Heard of the Arab Revolt of 36-39?

Quote:
And people who act as though there's some sort of moral equivalence between the perpetrators, and the victims

I don't think there is moral equivalence at all. But the fact is that in most colonial type conflicts one part will be stronger. It is not as if the Palestinians did not have F16s and Tanks they wouldn't use them against civilians.

In any case I don't see what your point is. You do realize that this is a communist website? Should communists support nationalists gangs over the solidarity of the Israeli and Palestinian working classes?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 12:53
John Somebody wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
And zionists clearly are neo - natzis, if state practicing / sanctioning of genocide, is a fundamental, defining factor of natzism,

But its not.

Don't simply say, " But it's not ", as though I'm supposed to accept your decree. Tell me why

because nazism, as opposed to fascism in general, is a very specific ideology with a mythology about the supremacy of the 'aryan race', the importance of a german fatherland and national identity, the undermining of this by 'cosmpolitan jews' etc. Part of the practice of this ideology was the physical extermination of its enemies (communists/anarchists/trade unionists) and its scapegoats (jews/romany), but even on the genocide front the comparison with Israel/zionism doesn't hold up as despite its vast hi-tech arsenal israel is not industrially exterminating palestinians, but maintaining them in intolerable conditions, perhaps in the hope they'll just give up and leave.

i'll say it again, there's no need to let the crimes of what is essentially liberal capitalist democracy off the hook by labelling them 'nazi.' capitalist states off all shades are capable of all sorts of atrocities.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 4 2008 12:55
Quote:
but even on the genocide front the comparison with Israel/zionism doesn't hold up as despite it's vast hi-tech arsenal israel is not industrially exterminating palestinians, but maintaining them in intolerable conditions, perhaps in the hope they'll just give up and leave.

Yep, very correct. It is known as "transfer" in Israeli discourse. And the corresponding Palestinian resistance is steadfastness (samud).

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 12:56
Joseph K. wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
is not a reason to criticise them for doing more than not giving, " a shit ". That just makes you sound like your trying to appease your conscience, or maybe to undermine such a campaign, without being honest for your reasons.

read the thread. people here in general were accused of 'not giving a shit', i responded that what't happening in palestine is shit, but there's not a lot we can do about it, and perhaps the best way to help would be in building and excercising some real collective power here. i'm not sure what you think i'm saying...

R and B wrote of what he/she thought of as a lack of response. That may have been wrong, but your dismissal seemed enough for me to make a point of. There's obviously things we can do, but whether an individual can make time for those things is obviously a matter for individual consideration. Your asking R n B if he/she gave a shit, about local situations that don't include kiddies being shot on the streets, is surely an attempt to undermine an important effort to give more than a shit about genocide

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 13:07
Joseph K. wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
yes, shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state.

i've occasionally bought israeli produce, so this includes me. do you think i'm an accomplice to genocide? really? i'm also a UK taxpayer, and as you say the UK are supporters of Israel (and Fatah for that matter, via the EU), so i'm 'implicated' there too. oh noes. i mean name me a capitalist state it is OK to 'support' by consuming goods. capitalism is based on exploitation, dispossession and misery, and so ethical consumption is at best a luxury conscience reliever for the wealthy and in practice an impossibility. i mean, am i 'an accomplice to sweatshops' for wearing clothes? or 'an accomplice to the banks' for using my overdraft?

Well now I can see I'm going to have to sit down later to heavy time answering both of you, and I have to do some work now. But for the tgime being , yes to the above, just like most mortals, including me. The question is, if we contribut to the continuance of this condition, and how much. Or how much we put other people off by thing s like asking then if theu give a shit about possibly selfisjh interests

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 13:08
John Somebody wrote:
R and B wrote of what he/she thought of as a lack of response. That may have been wrong, but your dismissal seemed enough for me to make a point of. There's obviously things we can do, but whether an individual can make time for those things is obviously a matter for individual consideration. Your asking R n B if he/she gave a shit, about local situations that don't include kiddies being shot on the streets, is surely an attempt to undermine an important effort to give more than a shit about genocide

R&B wrote that in the original post, so i'm not sure how s/he was responding to a lack of responses. for the record, i do think the israeli state's treatment of the palestinian population is terrible. ditto the burmese state and its. and the situation in swathes of central africa is depressing. in fact, there are many things i have little power to influence that i disagree with, to borrwow a quote off another thread:

Quote:
It's not the job of communists to try to fix each individual problem in society.
John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 13:10
Khawaga wrote:
Quote:
but even on the genocide front the comparison with Israel/zionism doesn't hold up as despite it's vast hi-tech arsenal israel is not industrially exterminating palestinians, but maintaining them in intolerable conditions, perhaps in the hope they'll just give up and leave.

Yep, very correct. It is known as "transfer" in Israeli discourse. And the corresponding Palestinian resistance is steadfastness (samud).

So you think slow motion, small scale genocide . . . . .isn't genocide. Back with some serious shit kicking out later

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 4 2008 13:25
John Somebody wrote:
So you think slow motion, small scale genocide . . . . .isn't genocide.

arguably Israeli state policy is genocide by the letter of the geneva conventions (particularly, from memory, relating to 'attempts to destroy in whole or part a national or ethnic culture'). but clearly the analogy to the holocaust is innacurrate on virtually all counts - of scale, speed, context, intent... from my limited knowledge of world genocides i'd have thought chinese policy towards tibet would be a closer comparison. but then that doesn't have the emotive impact of labelling your opponents nazis.

John Somebody wrote:
Well now I can see I'm going to have to sit down later to heavy time answering both of you, and I have to do some work now. But for the tgime being , yes to the above, just like most mortals, including me. The question is, if we contribut to the continuance of this condition, and how much. Or how much we put other people off by thing s like asking then if theu give a shit about possibly selfisjh interests

for starters, there's nothing wrong with selfishness in the sense i have advocated it, i.e. caring about yourself, insofar as it's not a replacement for solidarity. you seem to have a bit of a martyr complex. the point is we all 'contribute' to the world as it is, in fact the whole power of capital and the worlds states is our everyday alienated activity, without us, none of their crimes would be possible. does this make us complicit, in any meaningful ethical sense? no. politics based on guilt gets us nowhere, i see no reason to take personal responsibility for the crimes of the ruling class.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 4 2008 13:29
Quote:
So you think slow motion, small scale genocide . . . . .isn't genocide. Back with some serious shit kicking out later

Nah, I just pointed out it is actually called transfer in Israeli discourse. Doesn't make it any better of course, but then again it is not like the Palestinians don't know how to deal with this (steadfastness, which means not leaving the land like they did in 48).

Frankly I find your knowledge about Palestine shit poor, and your "analysis" just lacking. What is that you propose we can do? Why the fuck should I support Fatah (who are in any case collaborators with Israel) or Hamas (that introduces repressive "cultural" politics on their subjects in Gaza)? Palestinians are not one homogenous group.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 4 2008 13:39
John Somebody wrote:
Accomplices ??? As I've just said, British government, some British companies, and, yes, shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state. Or if not deliberately going out of their way to buy from and support them, just not giving a shit, as to whether or not that's actually happening.

So this means you think it is posible to change the behavore of the Israeli state through a boycott, carried out on an indervidual basis?

John Somebody wrote:
Good grief, no, I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying one side are the aggressors, and the others, no matter how derranged with anger, grief, and bitterness the've become, would not retalliate, sometimes irrationally, without the original and continuing, persisting, provocative racist scummery. No I'm not saying there's moral equivalence between them. I'm saying the opposite, again. The victims, Israeli, and Palestinian, are victims of the persistant aggresive provocateurs -- zionists.
Where have I said that Palestinians are homogenous, other than in being Palestinian victims, or that Israelis are, especially as many are refusers, and some are even active at providing information against zio thuggery, to the world. That's even if they don't accept that a state/society which depends on genocide to exist, has no right to exist.. Where have i said that ? And of course, nationalism is opposed to everyone's interests.
If state homicide bombers, are about to demolish my home or town with me inside , then I have, "something in common " with everyone inside whether bourgoisie, grief stricken, derranged jihadi's, or anyone else

I think you misunderstood me, I was asking if you think that for some one to consider Palestine and Israeli nationalism as equally bad, is the same as saying that the victims of aggression are the same as the aggressors?
This seems to be what you are saying.
The way I see it is that the victims of the aggression are ordinary Palestinians and Israelis, and the perpetrators are the leaders of Palestine and Israeli, and various terrorist groups, who all use people who believe they are fighting against attacks on "there" people, for there own benefit.
Although one set of nationalists are losing to the other better armed set of nationalists, nether of them act to the benefit of there respective populations. In both cases nationalism causes suffering to ordinary people and serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.
If a group of terrorists in my town provokes another more powerful group of terrorists to demolish the town that doesn't mean I should support the terrorist who happen to live in the same town as me.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Aug 4 2008 17:55
John Somebody wrote:
... the nationalists amongst Palestinian victims, tend to simply want to regain what has been stolen from them, some even willing to accept 1968 borders.

First, it's the 1967 borders that are usually referred to, since by 1968, the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights have already been occupied.

You referring to Palestinians homogeneously as victims is insulting both to them and to the reader's intelligence.

As for what nationalists among Palestinians wish for, they want power over as much as possible, they don't seem to mind resorting to violence to get it, and quite a few of them speak of controlling all of Palestine. The latest violence includes forcing fellow Palestinians to seek sanctuary in Israel:
AFP report
Shanghai Daily report

Which faction should high-minded concerned Westerners support in this conflict? Fatah, a large part of which is acting as a de facto Israeli occupation contractor in the West Bank and anti-Hamas infiltrator in Gaza, or Hamas, a theocratic movement turned regime who oppress the media, trade unions and women wherever they gain influence? Neither of them can be commended for their gentle attitude towards innocent Israelies or fellow Palestinians, for that matter.

John Somebody wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
And I know that while this British government, some of its companies and shoppers are accomplices in such terror, Palestinians should be angry at those of us who let it happen.

shoppers?

...
Shoppers. Not all of them, just the ones who know there's a boycott campaign, and would rather use their money to subsidise terror by supporting terrorist infrastructure, by supporting the economy of a terrorist state.

Are you talking about pretty much anyone who buys at my local convenience store, run and frequented by Israeli Palestinians, where the cheapest olive oil, as well as other products, are produced by settlers?

By the way, what would you recommend to us sods who happen to live in Israel, in order to take part in this boycott? Starve?

John Somebody
Offline
Joined: 30-07-08
Aug 4 2008 22:03
radicalgraffiti wrote:
John Somebody wrote:
All right, maybe I've still got something wrong about it. But I've identified a certain fundamental quality, of natzism (which is state practitioning of genocide or support for it), which is continuous throughout later editions of natzism. Therefore state practitioners of genocide, and their lackies, could surely be accurately described as neo -natzis. What's wrong with that ? This is not to claim that state practitioning of genocide didn't happen before 1933. But at Nuremburg it was given a label.

That's hardly unique to nazis is it? nor is it the only thing nazis have in common, so if you use the word nazi in that way it begins to mean "someone I dont like"
People don't need to be nazis for us to oppose them and what they do. I don't see how calling everyone who does things you don't like a nazi helps any argument you are trying to make.

Oh, all right then, it's not only natzis, that have natzi qualities. Its like saying its not only fascists that have fascist qualities. And so, titles like, " red facist " emerge. That doesn't make the use of the title, "fascist ", innacurate, when its used with the title/term, "red. Does it ? Then again, we could look at it in another way, such as, if if someone behaves in a certain, (e.g., natzi or fascist) way, then to that extent, that person is being a natzi/ fascist, or whayever. If you walk like a natzi, talk like a natzi, ethnic "cleanse" like a natzi, etc., then to all intents and purposes , you are a natzi, Not having a membership card, while behaviour makes you acceptable to the natzi fold, is not highly relevant. Your jump from that irrelevant point, to assuming that the word will be used to mean,"someone I don't like, is groundless. So again your reason to oppose my use of terms like zio -neo -natzi, are just barrel scraping aren't they ?

What reason do you have to suppose its only natzis that I oppose ?
What reason do you have to suppose that I call everyone who does things I don't like a natzi ?