Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[kabbes]

I know you're irritated here but there's no point in going off on an obtuse goalpost-moving exercise. I did not "restrict it specifically to urban" in the sense of only referring to posts on urban, and I think you know that.

I’m not irritated, I just thought it would move things forward if we can look at a concrete case study. I’m trying to talk about how and why people in the real world might make sense of the current atrocities by drawing upon the narrative associated with Nazis as a symbolic resource. Your response instead pinned it down (to my surprise) to what people on urban, specifically, are doing with their argumentation. That made me think that you and I (if not me and others) are talking at cross-purposes. So I want to see an example of the thing that you specifically are objecting to, so I can have my own perspective on it.

 

[Rob Ray]

I'm not objecting to any specific post or poster, possibly this is where you're misreading me I guess? I made a singular general point, as part of a discussion about the use of "like the Nazis" rhetoric, that using such rhetoric is counterproductive because it enables dismissal from the target where any other example would not. If anything I was being a bit on the cold-eyed side, because I was ignoring any feelings one way or the other to hone in on active impacts.

 

[Gramsci]

In its assault on northern Gaza, Israel has taken its depraved campaign to new depths | Owen Jones

Healthcare facilities burn, food and water are blocked and drones shoot their fleeing targets. Yet we cannot say we were not warned, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones

www.theguardian.com

I didn't know this about the Fathom journal. Apparently the IDF general published his 'plan for Gaza' in it a year ago?

I did post up about that recently. I think the Generals plan is not put together by serving IDF.

He's retired. His plan isn't secret . Its been doing the rounds of media in Israel And being taken seriously.

Opinion | ‘A new turning point in the history of the State of Israel. Most people don’t understand that’

In a briefing, Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Strategic Planning Branch of the IDF, emphasises the existential importance of Hamas being militaril...

fathomjournal.org

Reading it and this is one example of why using Nazi comparisons is lazy comparison to Israel.

His justifications for what are war crimes is done in such a reasonable fashion.

He says people should be given opportunities to move out. If they do they will be rewarded with food. If they don't they will be treated as combatants

This isn't the same as Nazis

What the Generals plan shows is how such supposed rational military planning is slippery slope to in practice war crimes and genocide. And part of the problem is he doesn't see that.

I don't think there is necessarily a coherent plan to enact genocide on the Palestinians. Over last year Israel society, retired generals have become gradually slipping into discussions involving war crimes and thinking they are the rational way forward. It becomes accepted common sense

That's a suggestion of mine btw . I could have got this wrong.

 

[kabbes]

I'm not objecting to any specific post or poster, possibly this is where you're misreading me I guess? I made a singular general point, as part of a discussion about the use of "like the Nazis" rhetoric, that using such rhetoric is counterproductive because it enables dismissal from the target where any other example would not. If anything I was being a bit on the cold-eyed side, because I was ignoring any feelings one way or the other to hone in on active impacts.

As a general point, though, you can’t ignore the semiotic role being played by the “Nazi” metaphor and dive straight into the discursive employment of that metaphor for the purpose of argumentation, as if the semiotic context doesn’t exist. My assertion is that there isn’t some kind of strategic decision to employ this discursive resource in order to provoke. Rather, the very fact that the metaphor is part of the semiotic scaffolding through which meaning-making has happened simply makes that deployment inevitable.

 

[Rob Ray]

As a general point, though, you can’t ignore the semiotic role being played by the “Nazi” metaphor and dive straight into the discursive employment of that metaphor for the purpose of argumentation, as if the semiotic context doesn’t exist. My assertion is that there isn’t some kind of strategic decision to employ this discursive resource in order to provoke. Rather, the very fact that the metaphor is part of the semiotic scaffolding through which meaning-making has happened simply makes that deployment inevitable.

It's a strategic decision the moment a person decides to publicly engage with the subject. You don't speak intending that nobody hear you. We all choose our words, the only question is how well we do so.

 

[kabbes]

I’m aware that my last post is jargon-filled. But it’s really just saying that if the average non-expert observer thinks that the Israelis are acting like Nazis then that’s the lens they’ll view them through. And then that’s what they’ll refer to in conversation about the issue.

 

[PTK]

As a general point, though, you can’t ignore the semiotic role being played by the “Nazi” metaphor and dive straight into the discursive employment of that metaphor for the purpose of argumentation, as if the semiotic context doesn’t exist. My assertion is that there isn’t some kind of strategic decision to employ this discursive resource in order to provoke. Rather, the very fact that the metaphor is part of the semiotic scaffolding through which meaning-making has happened simply makes that deployment inevitable.

It is not always being used as a metaphor.

 

[kabbes]

It's a strategic decision the moment a person decides to publicly engage with the subject. You don't speak intending that nobody hear you. We all choose our words, the only quesiton is how well we do so.

This is where you’re falling back on a rational model of humans (and necessarily positivist view of epistemology) that I think is unhelpful in understanding what is happening.

 

[Rob Ray]

And again, I am not expecting people to be anything. I'm not attempting to construct a perfect actor, I am taking a rhetorical concept and then analysing whether it is useful, with a view that it's probably more helpful to take one approach rather than another. Will everyone follow that path? no, obviously not. Could a few appreciate the thread of logic and subsequently act on it? Maybe, and the hope would be that it'd make the tiniest of impacts in our favour.

 

[kabbes]

And again, I am not expecting people to be anything. I am taking a rhetorical concept and then analysing whether it is useful, with a view that it's probably more helpful to take one approach rather than another. Will everyone follow that path? no, obviously not. Will some? Maybe, and the hope would be that it'd make the tiniest of impacts in our favour.

It’s not about “expectation” (i.e., what you think somebody should do). It’s that the way you understand how people work is that they follow some kind of rational process, which involves processing data to create objective knowledge, from which strategic or tactical decisions can be made in order to achieve an objective. In short, you’re viewing what is to be known as separate from how it is known — a dualism that is not uncommon a world for which the machine is the primary metaphor used to understand the self, but doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. People cannot employ knowledge until they have constructed that knowledge, and the way that it is constructed is inseparable from the way it will be employed. Social systems are not layered on top of an individual, they are the way that the individual has developed their understanding in the first place.

 

[Rob Ray]

It’s not about “expectation” (i.e., what you think somebody should do). It’s that the way you understand how people work is that they follow some kind of rational process, which involves processing data to create objective knowledge, from which strategic or tactical decisions can be made in order to achieve an objective. In short, you’re viewing what is to be known as separate from how it is known — a dualism that is not uncommon a world for which the machine is the primary metaphor used to understand the self, but doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. People cannot employ knowledge until they have constructed that knowledge, and the way that it is constructed is inseparable from the way it will be employed. Social systems are not layered on top of an individual, they are the way that the individual has developed their understanding in the first place.

You keep talking about how people work but I have not suggested that people will or should be expected to all act in an ideal (or indeed rational) way. Please acknowledge this before we go any further.

 

[Gramsci]

I don’t think people are relating the Israeli state to Nazis in order to “have a go at them”. They’re relating the Israeli state to Nazis because they think the Israeli state are acting like (what they understand to be) Nazis.

And since the defining characteristics of Nazis in the popular imagination is “industrial genocide of other ethnic groups” and “invades other countries to build their empire”, the imagery makes sense enough to me. I’m certainly not going to spend my time going around person to person to explain to them carefully the difference between the Israeli state and actual real-life Nazis.

Quite a lot of this could be applied to the British Empire. At different times.

 

[kabbes]

You keep talking about how people work but I have not suggested that people will or should be expected to all act in an ideal (or indeed rational) way. Please acknowledge this before we go any further.

The implication of your statements is that people process information and use it in a rational way (subject to flaws arising from cognitive limitations).

“Rational” doesn’t mean ideal. It’s not an aspiration. It’s simply a descriptor for a particular type of process, by which the accuracy or value of each step in the chain can be determined. The rational cognitive model is what you’re adopting by design — one in which there is some objective state of reality to be known, following which a decision can be made. Indeed, we can’t go any further until you realise this.

 

[kabbes]

Quite a lot of this could be applied to the British Empire. At different times.

It could indeed, and I’m sure that the British Empire might be the go-to metaphor for genocidal evil for many cultures!

 

[Rob Ray]

The implication of your statements is that people process information and use it in a rational way (subject to flaws arising from cognitive limitations).

“Rational” doesn’t mean ideal. It’s not an aspiration. It’s simply a descriptor for a particular type of process, by which the accuracy or value of each step in the chain can be determined. The rational cognitive model is what you’re adopting by design — one in which there is some objective state of reality to be known, following which a decision can be made. Indeed, we can’t go any further until you realise this.

No, it isn't.

If I tell someone who comes on calling Donald Trump a fat retard "that's not going to get you very far here" I'm not making any assumptions about how they have constructed their reality, what social or cultural influences they've grown up with, whether they're being a rational actor etc. I'm telling them that form of rhetoric isn't welcome and will be counterproductive for them in trying to win affection and support for their view.

Now apply this to my original post:

Ultimately if you're trying to have a go at someone why would you hand them tools to dismiss you? If it's a reach for imagery you think will hit home, but it has the opposite impact, then it's shit imagery. So just pick something else - it's not like there's a shortage.

Get it?

Edit: Possibly the confusion here is because I keep talking about people wanting to provoke/noting that the choice to speak is a strategy? My meaning there though is that while people always have intent (inherent in taking the act), it's not always very well thought through, which is where the influence of others comes in. When I was 16 I was (hopefully more of) an idiot, and the political things I said, the way I said it etc was usually pretty bloody stupid. I wasn't lacking reasoning or intent though - it was just not very useful reasoning and intent.

 

[Gramsci]

It could indeed, and I’m sure that the British Empire might be the go-to metaphor for genocidal evil for many cultures!

The Carribbean Marxist George Padmore argued that

Just to add this was written in 41. Before Holocaust was fully known about.

But comparison is valid

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

www.marxists.org

 

[Pickman's model]

The Carribbean Marxist George Padmore argued that

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

www.marxists.org

It's often said that the nazis used the methods of empire in Europe. And as corporal jones frequently observed, they don't like it up 'em

 

[tim]

My point, though, is that objecting to the comparison is like shouting into the wind. Individuals trying to make sense of something new by referencing it to something old? That’s a fundamental psychological process; objecting to it is like objecting to gravity. Each one of us has to decide what our response is to coming up against that process in this instance. A response that concentrates on the “well, actually…” differences between real Nazism and this actual genocide is a political choice to pick a side. By the time you’re having to defend why this genocide is not actually the same as Nazi genocide, you’ve really already lost the high ground.

There is no excuse for picking the side the antisemites.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah disability slurs are a really good example because they're really commonplace in describing people like trump in 'the real world' and loads of people would be like 'Yeah but that's exactly what he is, so what's the problem' and say that it wasn't an issue because of Trump's well documented disdain for disabled people anyway

 

[tim]

The Carribbean Marxist George Padmore argued that

Just to add this was written in 41. Before Holocaust was fully known about.

But comparison is valid

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

George Padmore: British Imperialists Treat the Negro Masses Like Nazis Treat the Jews (1941)

www.marxists.org

The systematic mass extermination of Jews did not start until 1942. Whatever validity the comparison might have had in 1941; it certainly wouldn't have been valid even two years later.

If you want a better comparison to Israel look at what has happened in Syria under Basher Assad.

 

[mojo pixy]

Do the Mormons of Utah control a prison full of native Americans with which they conduct acts of terror against on an almost daily basis?

Well, no. But in 1865 there are said to have been well over 20000 native Americans living in the lands now called Utah. Now there are a couple of thousand.

You can read all about the 'black hawk war' anywhere you like, and then decide if zionism is worse or not as bad.

As for today, I maintain there are no appropriate or accurate comparisons with the israel/palestine situation of 2024. It's a nightmare in a category of its own.

 

[teqniq]

So a couple of pages of debate concerning whether using 'Nazi' to describe Israel's actions in a present-day context. I for one wouldn't use it as I feel it is unhelpful, though I do feel there is a psychological case to be made that the abused has become the abuser; it is uncanny, in the worst possible way. In any event is brings me to this that I've just read. Palestinian writer susan abulhawa was commissioned by Guardian US to write a piece for a series they were running: “rise against fascism”. She duly did so but it was never published by the Guardian because Katharine Viner, the Guardian’s global editor-in-chief wanted the word 'holocaust' replaced by 'genocide'. susan abulhawa refused. Her reasons are explained in this Novara article:

Discontent Deepens Among Guardian Staff Over Palestine ‘Double Standard’ | Novara Media

Staff say the paper’s decision to permit Howard Jacobson’s controversial piece while censoring a leading Palestinian author is driven in part by a fear of antisemitism allegations. Rivkah Brown reports.

novaramedia.com

Novara have also published the piece originally intended for the Guardian US with the word 'holocaust' included:

I Went to Gaza. What I Saw Was a Holocaust | Novara Media

‘Israel is committing the holocaust of our time,’ writes Palestinian author susan abulhawa, ‘and it is doing it in full view of a seemingly indifferent world.’

novaramedia.com

 

[mojo pixy]

I’m aware that my last post is jargon-filled. But it’s really just saying that if the average non-expert observer thinks that the Israelis are acting like Nazis then that’s the lens they’ll view them through. And then that’s what they’ll refer to in conversation about the issue.

This is how racists justify using racist language, "I'm just saying it how I see it".

Apparently that's OK now.

 

[Gramsci]

The systematic mass extermination of Jews did not start until 1942. Whatever validity the comparison might have had in 1941; it certainly wouldn't have been valid even two years later.

If you want a better comparison to Israel look at what has happened in Syria under Basher Assad.

The reason I brought it up was part of the ongoing discussion here comparing Israel state/ Zionism actions to Nazi.

Part of the metaphorical way of discussing this ( if I get kabbes right) is use of Nazi to criticise something. As people have shared understanding of what that means as a metaphor.

My use of Padmore is to show that for some British empire wasn't that qualitatively different.

George Padmore questioned why should black colonial people fight for Britain.

The late British empire liked to portray itself as mature liberal empire. Padmore is saying this isn't how it worked in reality. Guiding native people to eventual self government at some point in future. The Empire as custodian of higher values which it will educate lower races into.

I'd say it was accurate to say after 41 it changed. The particular form of Fascism the Nazi form genocidal hatred of Jews didn't have any rational basis. For example they were carting off Jews to gas chambers in last months of war in Hungary. Using resources and manpower that was desperately needed for last ditch defence of Germany.

Most colonial subjugation wasn't genocidal. It was taking peoples land and keeping them in inferior position. Not nice but not genocidal in way Nazis were about Jews.

Padmore uses example of South Africa. Which as everyone knows eventually became Apartheid state

This happened between British empire and the Zionists. Settler colonialist need support of Empire but also get into conflict with the imperial centre. See US and Israel now. Very rocky relationship that just holds together.

I think comparing Israel state with Nazis really isn't on.

However seeing Zionism as coming about when European colonisation was considered normal is fair enough. It share traits with colonising settler imperialism.

Padmore interestingly discusses settler colonialism and the frictions that induces with imperial metropole in his article.

Israel is still acting like a mini imperial power. Gaza - genocide / West Bank - land seizures and Palestinians kept in policed inferior position. Trouble is it's still doing this in 2024.

I actually think there is something positive about Padmore work. Even if it is dated . He's making case that people oppressed in different ways can have links.

From his Marxist viewpoint that's necessary. Build bridges between different groups ( Jews and Black colonised people) with in end the common enemy being capitalism and imperialism. Unless both are abolished freedom isn't obtained.

 

[Gramsci]

It could indeed, and I’m sure that the British Empire might be the go-to metaphor for genocidal evil for many cultures!

I'm no expert on sociology. I think I see where your coming from.

Reality isn't just there. Shared understandings which change over time is how we construct our understanding of world around us.

Not having a go at you here but couple of points.

Stepping back isn't the argument here on use of Nazis as a metaphor sign of healthy debate?

As metaphors change over time?

I'd agree with Rob Ray that using Nazi metaphor lays one open to attack.

The other shared understanding that is newer Id say would be the word Apartheid.

It's now used and widely understood as term for a state that practices racist policies against indigenous people.

If I say Apartheid pretty well everyone I know has some understanding of what that means. Even if they don't follow politics.

To say that Israel state is an Apartheid state. That practices Apartheid within pre 67 borders and in Gaza / West Bank to me is much better way to use a term than Nazi.

Apartheid was originally SA term. I think to build on that kind of popular understanding is much better than the frequent ( I see on social media) Israel are like Nazi Germany.

It still winds up the Zionist/ Israel supporters. But whether one says it a settler colonial state, practices Apartheid or is like Nazi Germany they are going to say you can't judge Israel like this.

End result of that is Israeli exceptionalism. It stands outside all these descriptions or metaphors

That I think is something to object to.

 

[Pickman's model]

The reason I brought it up was part of the ongoing discussion here comparing Israel state/ Zionism actions to Nazi.

Part of the metaphorical way of discussing this ( if I get kabbes right) is use of Nazi to criticise something. As people have shared understanding of what that means as a metaphor.

My use of Padmore is to show that for some British empire wasn't that qualitatively different.

George Padmore questioned why should black colonial people fight for Britain.

The late British empire liked to portray itself as mature liberal empire. Padmore is saying this isn't how it worked in reality.

I'd say it was accurate to say after 41 it changed. The particular form of Fascism the Nazi form genocidal hatred of Jews didn't have any rational basis. For example they were carting off Jews to gas chambers in last months of war in Hungary. Using resources and manpower that was desperately needed for last ditch defence of Germany.

Most colonial subjugation wasn't genocidal. It was taking peoples land and keeping them in inferior position. Not nice but not genocidal in way Nazis were about Jews.

Padmore uses example of South Africa. Which as everyone knows eventually became Apartheid state

I think comparing Israel state with Nazis really isn't on.

However seeing Zionism as coming about when European colonisation was considered normal is fair enough. It share traits with colonising settler imperialism.

Padmore interestingly discusses settler colonialism and the frictions that induces with imperial metropole in his article.

Israel is still acting like a mini imperial power. Gaza - genocide / West Bank - land seizures and Palestinians kept in policed inferior position. Trouble is it's still doing this in 2024.

I actually think there is something positive about Padmore work. Even if it is dated . He's making case that people oppressed in different ways can have links.

From his Marxist viewpoint that's necessary. Build bridges between different groups ( Jews and Black colonised people) with in end the common enemy being capitalism and imperialism. Unless both are abolished freedom isn't obtained.

Tbh by your world view it might be irrational. But by theirs it might be wholly rational. National socialism doesn't make much sense to people who aren't, to use a phrase of nietzsche's, victims of the same passion. But if a core of nazi thought was hatred of Jews, getting rid of them while you had the chance seems to me comprehensible and appalling.

 

[agricola]

I'm no expert on sociology. I think I see where your coming from.

Reality isn't just there. Shared understandings which change over time is how we construct our understanding of world around us.

Not having a go at you here but couple of points.

Stepping back isn't the argument here on use of Nazis as a metaphor sign of healthy debate?

As metaphors change over time?

I'd agree with Rob Ray that using Nazi metaphor lays one open to attack.

The other shared understanding that is newer Id say would be the word Apartheid.

It's now used and widely understood as term for a state that practices racist policies against indigenous people.

If I say Apartheid pretty well everyone I know has some understanding of what that means. Even if they don't follow politics.

To say that Israel state is an Apartheid state. That practices Apartheid within pre 67 borders and in Gaza / West Bank to me is much better way to use a term than Nazi.

Apartheid was originally SA term. I think to build on that kind of popular understanding is much better than the frequent ( I see on social media) Israel atte like Nazi Germany.

It still winds up the Zionist/ Israel supporters.

TBF I understand why people do it (co-opt words for other horrors such as Nazi, fascist, colonialist or apartheid to describe this) but I really think using them really tends to weaken arguments against what is going on as they usually (as we have seen here) end up in a discussion over definition.

I know it is a problematic word itself, given how it has been used by anti-semites in the past, but to me the only adjective that should be used to describe these crimes is Zionist. That word contains the context by which the crimes are committed, the motivation for them and a description of the politics that supports the crimes. It is also (or at least it should be) separate enough from the other terms that are often used interchangably with it.

 

[Smangus]

I did post up about that recently. I think the Generals plan is not put together by serving IDF.

He's retired. His plan isn't secret . Its been doing the rounds of media in Israel And being taken seriously.

Opinion | ‘A new turning point in the history of the State of Israel. Most people don’t understand that’

In a briefing, Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Strategic Planning Branch of the IDF, emphasises the existential importance of Hamas being militaril...

fathomjournal.org

Reading it and this is one example of why using Nazi comparisons is lazy comparison to Israel.

His justifications for what are war crimes is done in such a reasonable fashion.

He says people should be given opportunities to move out. If they do they will be rewarded with food. If they don't they will be treated as combatants

This isn't the same as Nazis

What the Generals plan shows is how such supposed rational military planning is slippery slope to in practice war crimes and genocide. And part of the problem is he doesn't see that.

I don't think there is necessarily a coherent plan to enact genocide on the Palestinians. Over last year Israel society, retired generals have become gradually slipping into discussions involving war crimes and thinking they are the rational way forward. It becomes accepted common sense

That's a suggestion of mine btw . I could have got this wrong.

Tbh it sounds like an updated version of the Barbarossa order which allowed German troops to execute anyone without trial or fear of repercussions when they invaded Russia. Everyone civilian or otherwise would in effect de facto be a partisan and be treated as such.

A bit simplistic maybe but the effects are the same.

Note , not comparing Isreal to the Nazis but some tactics, justifications they use are similar to what happened in ww2.

 

[bcuster]

The monster hid with his hostages

A drone found Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. His DNA showed he hid with hostages

Before Israel killed him, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar hid with six Israeli hostages, one of them a U.S. citizen.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Gramsci]

TBF I understand why people do it (co-opt words for other horrors such as Nazi, fascist, colonialist or apartheid to describe this) but I really think using them really tends to weaken arguments against what is going on as they usually (as we have seen here) end up in a discussion over definition.

I know it is a problematic word itself, given how it has been used by anti-semites in the past, but to me the only adjective that should be used to describe these crimes . It is also (or at least it should be) separate enough from the other terms that are often used interchangably with it.

Ok in that case what is the description of the politics of Zionism?

is Zionist. That word contains the context by which the crimes are committed, the motivation for them and a description of the politics that supports the crimes