What Fanon implored us to do was to view the struggle of the oppressed as a struggle to create a new mode of being, a new form of humanity. Within the revolutionary struggles of the masses, he insisted, lie the seeds of a new humanity. The ongoing resistance in Palestine today is not a new phenomenon, but is rather the latest episode in a decades’ long struggle for freedom and what Hegel and Fanon both agree on, recognition. Not recognition to live within shrivelled little cantons and drip-fed subsistence, but recognition as a human being in the holistic sense of the term. The stone throwing, the stabbings and the bombings are a reaction to a colonial regime which denies this recognition.
Both the Occupier and the Occupied can and do use acts of terrorism to further their aims, but the aims are diametrically opposed. The aim of the occupier is to continue the occupation, that requires violence to maintain, and ethnic cleansing. The aim of the occupied is to end the occupation, by any means possible, and gain emancipation. We see that one is a reaction to the other, Israel’s perpetual violence towards native peoples is the underlying cause of these conflicts. Solutions to ending the violence of anti-colonialism can only come from ending the underlying violence of the colonialism.
We see that permanent occupation develops into an Apartheid, as the settlers / occupiers have rights upheld by the State and Military, while the natives / occupied have no rights and subjected to violence from both the Settlers and Military. The State, who holds the monopoly on power, uses terrorism to suppress resistance to the occupation in order to maintain it. The occupied, having no power, uses terrorism as a means to resist the occupation.
Israel has no interest in peace, it has interest in land grabbing, which is in complete opposition to peace. This is fundamental to Zionism. Which is why an end to Zionism and a regime change, where a Secular Bi-National One-State that gives equal rights to Palestinians and Israelis is the only way for the conflict to really end. Not only with Palestinian resistance, but with all resistance groups that were created by Israeli occupation.
The existence of Hamas, and any armed resistance movement, is directly due to the decades of violence experienced daily under the permanent occupation, the Apartheid State, of Israel. It’s impossible to understand their existence if you don’t understand the lived experience and material conditions they are forced to live under. There is no such thing as a perfect victim when it comes to anti-Colonialist resistance, not for the Vietcong, the IRA, or the ANC either. Can you condemn the violence of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the same way as the violence of the Warsaw Ghetto?
Adi Callai has also done a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history, as well as an analysis of Franz Fanon and Identity Politics in the context of Colonialism and Anti-colonialism.
Honestly, when it comes to these types of conflict, I’m less concerned about the overall morality of the movement, and more concerned with the the individual actions, and even then, I’m generally more concerned with effectiveness, rather than whether or not it was “right”. That question tends to get very blurry as time goes on. Look at historical revolutions against monarchies like the French or Russian revolutions. Does the initial “righteousness” of the movement cover for actions that came later?
I’m a believer in being aware of and accepting the consequences of the choices you make, both good and bad. If there are bad consequences to your actions, you have to own the fact that you’ve either deemed those consequences as acceptable, or else you were unaware that it would happen. Everything is a choice, and all choices have consequences. Judging the right and wrong of it is a quagmire I try not to delve into. I think it’s much more useful to keep sight of what choices led to what consequences, and learn from that.
You’d benefit from watching those videos by Adi Callai or reading Franz Fanon.
When peaceful resistance is met with live ammo and the everyday violence of apartheid and settler colonialism are normalized by the occupier, the only option left is armed resistance. When the occupier wants you dead for existing, you can either die fighting for your freedom or die lying down.
I think you need to think through the full implications of what it means when I say that all actions have consequences. I don’t just mean that in the context of Hamas’s actions. It applies to everyone. Hamas’s existence is a consequence of actions taken by a whole host of people (there’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes to any geopolitical issue in the middle east).
The point I’m trying to get across is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one get to use the “look what you made me do” excuse. It’s your fault for choosing to do a thing, and it may be someone else’s fault for forcing you into that choice. If you want to try to follow the butterfly effect backwards to some original fault to find someone to point at and go “it’s all their fault!”, good luck to you. There’s too many what-ifs. Does any of this happen if the Arab world doesn’t go to war with Israel off and on since the 40s? Does the US even think twice about Israel if there wasn’t the sunni schiite schism and the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy wars driving instability in the region? Do we blame it all on the British for drawing arbitrary lines across the map?
So it’s the fault of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising for choosing violence? You’re just both-sides-ing Colonialism and Anti-colonialism without any critical understanding of the material reality of why the colonialism exists or how it’s affecting the local population.
Does any of this happen if the Arab world doesn’t go to war with Israel off and on since the 40s?
So we’re doing Zionist propaganda now?
The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities - Simha Flapan
Are you just not capable of viewing a conflict as anything other than absolute good vs absolute evil? Are you a person that believes the ends always justify the means? Who then gets to decide which ends are the most just?
I’m Anti-colonialist anti-imperialist and anti-fascist. I believe every human deserves human rights. I support those who fight against their oppressors in order to gain emancipation and independence. Violence doesn’t come out of nowhere, to understand where it comes from you need material analysis. To end anti-colonialist violence, you need to first end the violence of colonialism. That is the root cause of anti-colonial violence. It’s not that difficult to understand, especially if you try to read and understand the works of those who fought against colonialism and imperialism.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but the way you phrase it seems to imply that any and all actions taken by the oppressed group are inherently justified. Is that the case, or would you say that there are still limits?
I’m not interested in justification, that sidelines the root causes of the issue. If the violent actions of the oppressed are concerning, which is a completely understandable position, the focus still needs to center on the violent actions of the oppressor (the root cause) which are also magnitudes worse both in brutality and scale.
I don’t personally agree with every action every resistance has ever done, but that doesn’t matter. If I want an end to the violence, which I do, I know the focus of my attention needs to be on ending the root cause of the violence.
This has been the case with every anti-colonialist movement. Ireland, Vietnam, Algeria, ect. Something Franz Fanon has studied, understood, and explained incredibly well.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20151019-palestine-through-the-lens-of-frantz-fanon/
Both the Occupier and the Occupied can and do use acts of terrorism to further their aims, but the aims are diametrically opposed. The aim of the occupier is to continue the occupation, that requires violence to maintain, and ethnic cleansing. The aim of the occupied is to end the occupation, by any means possible, and gain emancipation. We see that one is a reaction to the other, Israel’s perpetual violence towards native peoples is the underlying cause of these conflicts. Solutions to ending the violence of anti-colonialism can only come from ending the underlying violence of the colonialism.
We see that permanent occupation develops into an Apartheid, as the settlers / occupiers have rights upheld by the State and Military, while the natives / occupied have no rights and subjected to violence from both the Settlers and Military. The State, who holds the monopoly on power, uses terrorism to suppress resistance to the occupation in order to maintain it. The occupied, having no power, uses terrorism as a means to resist the occupation.
Israel has no interest in peace, it has interest in land grabbing, which is in complete opposition to peace. This is fundamental to Zionism. Which is why an end to Zionism and a regime change, where a Secular Bi-National One-State that gives equal rights to Palestinians and Israelis is the only way for the conflict to really end. Not only with Palestinian resistance, but with all resistance groups that were created by Israeli occupation.
The existence of Hamas, and any armed resistance movement, is directly due to the decades of violence experienced daily under the permanent occupation, the Apartheid State, of Israel. It’s impossible to understand their existence if you don’t understand the lived experience and material conditions they are forced to live under. There is no such thing as a perfect victim when it comes to anti-Colonialist resistance, not for the Vietcong, the IRA, or the ANC either. Can you condemn the violence of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the same way as the violence of the Warsaw Ghetto?
In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video
Adi Callai has also done a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history, as well as an analysis of Franz Fanon and Identity Politics in the context of Colonialism and Anti-colonialism.
Honestly, when it comes to these types of conflict, I’m less concerned about the overall morality of the movement, and more concerned with the the individual actions, and even then, I’m generally more concerned with effectiveness, rather than whether or not it was “right”. That question tends to get very blurry as time goes on. Look at historical revolutions against monarchies like the French or Russian revolutions. Does the initial “righteousness” of the movement cover for actions that came later?
I’m a believer in being aware of and accepting the consequences of the choices you make, both good and bad. If there are bad consequences to your actions, you have to own the fact that you’ve either deemed those consequences as acceptable, or else you were unaware that it would happen. Everything is a choice, and all choices have consequences. Judging the right and wrong of it is a quagmire I try not to delve into. I think it’s much more useful to keep sight of what choices led to what consequences, and learn from that.
You’d benefit from watching those videos by Adi Callai or reading Franz Fanon.
When peaceful resistance is met with live ammo and the everyday violence of apartheid and settler colonialism are normalized by the occupier, the only option left is armed resistance. When the occupier wants you dead for existing, you can either die fighting for your freedom or die lying down.
I think you need to think through the full implications of what it means when I say that all actions have consequences. I don’t just mean that in the context of Hamas’s actions. It applies to everyone. Hamas’s existence is a consequence of actions taken by a whole host of people (there’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes to any geopolitical issue in the middle east).
The point I’m trying to get across is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one get to use the “look what you made me do” excuse. It’s your fault for choosing to do a thing, and it may be someone else’s fault for forcing you into that choice. If you want to try to follow the butterfly effect backwards to some original fault to find someone to point at and go “it’s all their fault!”, good luck to you. There’s too many what-ifs. Does any of this happen if the Arab world doesn’t go to war with Israel off and on since the 40s? Does the US even think twice about Israel if there wasn’t the sunni schiite schism and the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy wars driving instability in the region? Do we blame it all on the British for drawing arbitrary lines across the map?
So it’s the fault of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising for choosing violence? You’re just both-sides-ing Colonialism and Anti-colonialism without any critical understanding of the material reality of why the colonialism exists or how it’s affecting the local population.
So we’re doing Zionist propaganda now?
Additionally:
Are you just not capable of viewing a conflict as anything other than absolute good vs absolute evil? Are you a person that believes the ends always justify the means? Who then gets to decide which ends are the most just?
I’m Anti-colonialist anti-imperialist and anti-fascist. I believe every human deserves human rights. I support those who fight against their oppressors in order to gain emancipation and independence. Violence doesn’t come out of nowhere, to understand where it comes from you need material analysis. To end anti-colonialist violence, you need to first end the violence of colonialism. That is the root cause of anti-colonial violence. It’s not that difficult to understand, especially if you try to read and understand the works of those who fought against colonialism and imperialism.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but the way you phrase it seems to imply that any and all actions taken by the oppressed group are inherently justified. Is that the case, or would you say that there are still limits?
I’m not interested in justification, that sidelines the root causes of the issue. If the violent actions of the oppressed are concerning, which is a completely understandable position, the focus still needs to center on the violent actions of the oppressor (the root cause) which are also magnitudes worse both in brutality and scale.
I don’t personally agree with every action every resistance has ever done, but that doesn’t matter. If I want an end to the violence, which I do, I know the focus of my attention needs to be on ending the root cause of the violence.
This has been the case with every anti-colonialist movement. Ireland, Vietnam, Algeria, ect. Something Franz Fanon has studied, understood, and explained incredibly well.