Lemmy.World Announcements

parent

[–] Scirocco@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Now, I'm an innocent* bystander normie who's just wandered in here.....

But the way you write is pretty strident(?). I get that this language is developed over time and many interactions that I've not seen, and yadda yadda

But you are the FIRST person I've seen say "netanyahoo created Hamas"

Who tf sincerely says/believes/promotes that? The comment you replied to sure didn't. Nowhere in this thread afaik has anyone made a statement even resembling that.

No shit Sherlock opposing interests will try to manipulate their opponents by doing shit like promoting/helping/enabling the "worst elements" in their opposition. That's not new and occurs everywhere and apparently there is clear and compelling evidence that Netanyahu worked pretty hard to make sure that Palestinians were represented poorly.

So, I guess.... Thanks for letting us know that someone out there has that ridiculous rhetoric? But it's not relevant to the commenter you were replying to, or anything else afaik.

my innocence is debatable and relative

parent

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

for an innocent bystander you sure seem quick to tone police

i was responding to this:

netanyahu funded hamas in the most recent gazan election to help them win

"israel created hamas" narrative has been an extremely common zionist talking point, just because the phrasing here is slightly different doesn't change that

'represented poorly' is liberal optics framing; they're a colonized people resisting a genocide; colonizers are going to portray any effective resistance as violent terrorism

the 'anarcho anti-realist' i am responding to has a history of claiming extremely radical politics but then regurgitating bog standard liberal zionism, hence my 'strident' response

parent

[–] Scirocco@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

To be clear, I'm pretty sure you and many other folks on Lemmy might characterize me as a "shitlib" overall, and I'm not familiar with language like "tone police" but from context I understand that you feel like I criticized you for being "strident" which I guess is true, and I apologize for that.

It is probably my "liberal" background that makes me think that strident presentation weakens argument, and I thought your point would have been clearer/better/more persuasive without that overriding passion. Anyhow that's all just style.

Is it not pretty well documented that Netanyahu and company did, in fact, enable/approve a bunch of Qatari money to be funneled to Hamas? And that he's stated openly that the reason is to keep the PA and Hamas separate and not working together?

I wasn't aware of the Israel-Created-Hamas drama, but that article you linked certainly paints a pretty clear picture of a lot of early Israeli influence/meddling, despite the aim of the article to say nuh-uh.

"Created" is too strong a term for sure, but it seems pretty obvious that Israel's policies of ever-increasing oppression/colonization/genocide make a pretty fertile environment for a popular resistance group with an armed/violent component to form.

Did the US "create" ISIS? Not exactly, but they (we) sure did set the stage super-effectively.

Russia did not create the NRA but they absolutely did co-opt and use it to their great benefit to funnel money around to influence US internal politics. NRA today is, very rightly, a discredited and declining organization.

Big-mad defensiveness from criticisms of Hamas over Israeli influence (open, discrete or clandestine) are counterproductive to Hamas' interest in my opinion. They would be better to take the time to reflect, analyze and ensure that their current decisions aren't being influenced by Israel.

Unfortunately for Palestinians, I don't think the Hamas organization is very good at this, but it's not a huge surprise

Israel is extremely effective with these kinds of operations, and not only in regards to Hamas. USA is their most important target.

"Liberal Optics Framing" is another new phrase, but it's not as clear to me as tone police.

When I said (without a lot of thought) Hamas has "represented poorly" I was assuming that Hamas has been supported/funded/enabled by Netanyahu et al because the policies/actions they expect Hamas to take will be a better outcome for Israel than the policies/actions of the PA had they won the election.

I'm pretty sure you understood that. And I'm pretty sure the assumption is reasonable.

Is your objection of/to liberal optics framing because the implication is that Hamas is more violent than the PA, and it's very clear that Israel WANTS more Palestinian violence to continue to justify their own violence?

The violent terrorism we have seen from Hamas hasn't exactly turned out to be "effective resistance" at all.

TBH I don't know what would even count as effective resistance at this point.

Maybe the most effective thing they could/can do is continue the social media appeals / influence campaigns which do generate discussions like this one, but does that even count as "resistance"

Anyhow this is already too long and rambling, and I do thank you for taking the time to engage. I read stuff around here because I want to understand the left (left-er?) better.

parent

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

for what its worth i appreciate the good faith engagement and the apology.

on 'liberal optics framing': for me this is shorthand for 'what looks good to western observers'. you said hamas was 'represented poorly', this centers how palestinians are perceived rather than material reality of occupation.

even if israel does try to create a 'strategy of tension' (ie provoke/allow funding of violent response to justify crackdown) that doesn't mean the oppressed are wrong for resisting. it's just part of the standard playbook for colonial powers because it allows them to paint themselves as simply defending against unreasonable actors.

the logic of 'don't resist violently because that's what they want' leads to: don't resist at all, because any resistance will be used to justify more violence. that's paralysis, not strategy.

colonial powers will use any resistance, be it violent or nonviolent, to justify violence. the great march of return (2018) was explicitly nonviolent and israel still shot medics, journalists, children, all of them unarmed protesters. they'll justify crackdowns regardless.

from my perspective the question isn't 'does resistance give israel pretext' (it always will), it's 'does resistance materially challenge occupation and build toward liberation.'

armed resistance does that: it makes occupation costly, ties down military resources, and demonstrates that colonization won't be accepted peacefully.

calling palestinian armed resistance 'violent terrorism' accepts israeli/US framing. armed resistance to military occupation is legitimate under international law. the framing 'terrorism' vs 'self-defense' is itself colonial, resistance to colonization is treated as terrorism while state violence is treated as legitimate.

on netanyahu/qatar money: yes, it's documented that he allowed qatari money into gaza and exploited hamas/pa divisions. but my issue is that the framing surrounding 'israel created/funded hamas' removes palestinian agency and treats resistance as israeli puppet show. hamas emerged from material conditions of occupation. netanyahu exploited existing divisions for divide-and-conquer, a standard colonial tactic

your isis comparison isn't wrong either, the US didn't create isis but created conditions (iraq invasion, destabilization) that enabled it. they also helped fund it. israel also supported isis as it was a useful wedge to destabilize syria

on what's 'effective': resistance isn't just one front. it requires action on every axis. armed struggle adds material cost to occupation. BDS and legal challenges such as ICC/ICJ adds economic/diplomatic pressure. countering propaganda shifts societal opinion against the occupation. the goal isn't just military victory, it's making occupation unsustainable politically, economically, diplomatically.