Israel to World: "Suck It."

can we not with the fucking "jihadism" and "terrorism" please this the language of empire

ok dude

I can quickly accept that "terrorism" is the language of empire, imposed upon a struggle for self-determination and against oppression. But don't both al-Q and ISIS self-identify as being engaged in a "jihad" which encompasses specific political, and not just theological, aims? Isn't their claim upon the concept of "jihad" as being sanctioned, even demanded, by Islam, a central piece of their ideology as political organizations? If not, I have been terribly misled.

jihad means a lot of things

right, and so... about "jihadism" then?

jihad can be that moment when you know you're going to eat the entire bag of doritos

imperial construct xp

specifically a useful way to homogenise a whole range of unconnected and frequently opposed movements and people into a single world-threatening menace in order to make preemptive violence against them seem self evidently necessary. tellingly it is now used by china and russia and syria for their purposes in the exact same way the US and its allies use it

Hamas leaders themselves use the word.

KM otm.

This isn’t about Hamas. So you guys’ parsing of the meaning of jihad is beside the point.

It’s not about ISIL or Al-Qaeda. It’s about Israel and its military occupation.

Maybe we should parse the meaning of the word “democracy”. Israel uses it about itself - that must be what Israel is!

Aimless what’s a democracy?

Because I’m starting to think I’ve been misled!!

all of these political leaders seem to be...lying!!

the point is there is no ideology of jihadism there are many people and movements engaging in what they perceive or claim to be jihad including those who have been supported by or aligned with the US at times but as soon as the label is applied they become an existential threat in need of extermination hence the readiness of oppressive regimes including israel & the US to wield it

just seen the latest expression of genocidist settler solidarity from the scum in washington. death to america

How about an ideology of islamism extremism is bad at all times no matter how the US or Israel or whoever aligns with it. And allow us to parse the difference between, say, Burma making jihadist claims about the Rohingya peoples which is obviously ridiculous and groups that clearly identify themselves as perpetrators of jihad.

no

Aimless what’s a democracy?

Whatever it denotes, few people claim the word is the exclusive property of imperialists, so the analogy to the discussion of whether "jihadism" is the language of empire is a poor one.

Uprisings against authoritarian governments generally demand the government become a "democracy". I leave it to those movements to define it for themselves, but it broadly denotes a government that allows the governed a means to choose their leaders and to participate in important governmental processes.

why is if so obviously ridiculous in the context of burma and why is it remotely necessary to do this now at all

again jihad is not "terrorism" and "extremism" and all the things these terms are supposed to imply

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that ‘jihad’, a term that can encompass both the conquest of Spain and not eating a bag of Doritos when you are meant to be fasting isn’t a useful lens to frame this, or many other issues, with. The popular meaning of the term in the media is absolutely a Western construct.

besides the point but uprisings against authoritarian governments are about a lot of things and democracy and human rights in the liberal sense are just the most internationally approved terms in which to frame them

Tweets in the London march

The demo today felt really powerful. Not only big, but very young, lines, slogans and placards largely determined by decolonial, anti-racist commitments not worn out British Trotskyism. Genuinely felt like a broad, popular force.

— Tom Gann (@Tom_Gann) May 15, 2021

jihad means a lot of things

tellingly it is now used by china and russia and syria for their purposes in the exact same way the US and its allies use it

co-option of powerful words by political organizations for their own narrow political purposes is not the exclusive province of imperialists or authoritarians.

the point is there is no ideology of jihadism

True. There are many ideologies which self-identify as jihadist and these, as you point out often conflict. The same is true of Protestantism as a theological term. There are hundreds of sects who self-identify as protestant and they differ wildly about what they believe, even when they use many of the same terms.

afaics, "jihadism" is a football which a great many political entities use for their own purposes. By stating it is the exclusive property of imperialists you are equally stating that organizations like hamas, isis, and al-Q who make strong counter-claims to their right to define the word, have been co-opted into serving the purposes of the imperialists. They'd disagree.

I would disagree with them

palestinians are reminding us that decolonization is not abstract. it is material. it is violent. it is not popular, it will be resisted and debated by the entire structures of the monstrous colonial world. and it is the only way forward, and it is the only path of life.

— #SaveSheikhJarrah (@YouKnowFargo) May 14, 2021

(xxp) Do any of those organizations use the term 'jihadism' though?

Stop. This isn’t about Aimless’ definition of jihad.

What about Left's definition?

what definition. fuck this abstract bs I'm sorry to have participated

This isn’t an Israeli war in Gaza. This is an Israeli-US-UK-French-German war on the Palestinian people. The West is a full partner in this, just as they have been full partners in the Saudi-UAE war on the Yemeni people.

— asad abukhalil أسعد أبو خليل (@asadabukhalil) May 15, 2021

fuck this abstract bs

fair enogh. if it is bs to discuss it now, then it was bs from the start. nb: here was the start:

can we not with the fucking "jihadism" and "terrorism" please this the language of empire

so, maybe can we not with the fucking quibbles about the words we use and address the facts on the ground again

eh Left and ShariVari are right about “jihadism”

facts on the ground

Israeli analysts have explained, mostly in Hebrew because they don't want this understood in the West, the strategy behind destroying large residential buildings is they believe the Palestinians living there are better off than most and making them homeless might pressure Hamas.

— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) May 15, 2021

Leicester City's Hamza Choudhury and Wesley Fofana wave the Palestinian flag after their FA Cup Final win over Chelsea pic.twitter.com/xYJiVvJiDb

— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) May 15, 2021

Thousands standing in solidarity with Palestine. Newcastle. pic.twitter.com/ql3B27mOf8

— Daniel Kebede (@DanielKebedeNEU) May 15, 2021

If deliberately making people homeless isn’t legally considered a form of genocide, the UN definition needs to be reworked.

Also, if one wants to see how much american media cares about the people of Gaza, compare the coverage of the destruction of the AP offices and... people getting killed.

facts on the ground

Israeli analysts have explained, mostly in Hebrew because they don't want this understood in the West, the strategy behind destroying large residential buildings is they believe the Palestinians living there are better off than most and making them homeless might pressure Hamas.
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) May 15, 2021
― Free Palestine (Left), Saturday, 15 May 2021 17:54 (yesterday) link

I tried to follow the thread of this, and the only source I could find was an Israeli left journalist speculating that this might be the motive. Which is very different from the claim that Israeli analysts are explaining some secret motive in Hebrew because they don't want it understood in the West. Also, wouldn't the primary motive for an Israeli analyst to speak Hebrew be that they primarily speak Hebrew, as their native language?

There is not a single hebrew speaker in the west that could translate those comments.

ok good points. i don't know how accurate any given source is on what things especially since I don't speak hebrew or arabic and english language media is useless

Fuck Macron

Incredible! Massive march in Paris in support of #Palestine despite Macron’s recent ban of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. pic.twitter.com/hnGUrdnYDg

— Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo) May 15, 2021

Fuck Macron always, but a ban might not be the right word, there is no law to prevent pro-palestinian gatherings and protest, I would argue it’s even worse: in that it’s sort of an executive order that can renewed on the whim each time the conflict flares up. It’s president ordering the police on the phone.

The stupid “logic” after the burning and looting of jewish businesses and attacks on places of worship in 2014 is that pro-palestinian groups need to gain the benefit of the doubt, but really what it does is that now the peaceful pro-palestinians protestors don’t have an avenue to show that yes, they can be just as peaceful as anyone of course, and they can’t show they seperated themselves from more extemist elements of the larger group.

Also this is just in Paris, no such things interdiction exists outside of Paris afaik.

"but really what it does is that now the peaceful pro-palestinians protestors don’t have an avenue to show that yes, they can be just as peaceful as anyone of course, and they can’t show they seperated themselves from more extemist elements of the larger group."

The last few days have seen protests in cities across the world, they don't need to show you or anybody that they are different from extremists.

As always with this conflict, I am left wondering what the Israeli right really imagines as a long-term answer. There are 5 million people in the Palestinian territories, most of them are not going to leave no matter how miserable conditions become because most of them don't have any obvious place to go. They can't absorb them and give them citizenship and still maintain a Jewish state; they can't absorb them and NOT give them citizenship, because that would make the apartheid comparisons undeniable; they can't kill them all, or at least I hope not; if they refuse them their own state and a path to get there ... what do they imagine is going to happen?

And for the U.S. (for its own totally bad reasons) to be just gently going along with periodic tut-tuts about settlements is also unconscionable of course.

The last few days have seen protests in cities across the world, they don't need to show you or anybody that they are different from extremists.

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, May 16, 2021 11:47 AM (seventeen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I’m talking specifically about Paris. I have no doubts the protests in my city were peaceful, despite a few anti-semitic messages here and there.

They can't absorb them and give them citizenship and still maintain a Jewish state.

This is the one thing I will forever disagree with. A jewish state can be multicultural* and multireligious. Succesive governements have made the choice that it wouldn’t be, but that doesn’t mean that other paths were or are impossible.

*It already is, in many ways.

what would a Jewish state mean with a Muslim majority that had full citizenship (and presumably more political control)? is this a 2 state thing

(which seems impossible and is unpopular with everyone)

I think about this a lot too. I can’t imagine ethnic cleansing can ever be “complete” at this kind of slow burn pace (“natural expansion” of existing settlements and storming of hilltops here and there). It would probably take hundreds of years for Jewish settlers to take over all of the West Bank like this. Does Israel just intend to sustain this indefinitely? I guess it’s possible for there not to be an “end goal,” just an endless attempt to balance tensions.