I know you don't want to hear this, but the position that you "love the Palestinian people but hate Hamas" is actually helping Israel kill the Palestinian people.
The propaganda line that "we love the people but hate whoever happens to be leading them" is the standard Israeli position (ie., Israel had the same position on the PLO back in the day, etc.).
The propaganda line "we love the people but hate their leader" is also the standard regime change position. It goes along with regime change campaigns - the US/Canada/etc. just didn't recognize the Syria election, they didn't recognize the Venezuela elections, etc.
"But these leaders are awful!" you might reply. "The elections were shams!" you might say. I haven't studied Syria's elections closely (or Iran's, etc.) but Venezuela's were not a sham. Nor was the election that Hamas won.
Now there should have been elections since the one that Hamas won so maybe you would argue they don't have legitimacy. But new Palestinian elections have been blocked by the US/Israel, not Hamas. Rejecting the winners while preventing elections - also standard US regime change.
"But Hamas uses violence," you will reply. But the US recognizes plenty of parties that use violence. "Hamas has a hateful charter", you'll say - but Hamas removed the hateful elements of the charter without any change in the non-recognition.
Maybe you're particularly well versed in the lore and say "Hamas is illiberal and doesn't separate religion and state" - but then you'll trip over the fact that neither does Likud, much less Saudi Arabia.
An Israeli writer Uri Avnery used to say that it's only with enemies that one can make peace, not with friends.
When the US delegitimizes a people's leadership, democratic or not, prepares the way for violence against those people.
Israel's siege of Gaza has kept its children on the edge of starvation. Their growth is stunted from malnutrition. Their water is undrinkable. Their agricultural fields have been bombed. Israel never says "we're doing this to kill Palestinian people". They say "Because Hamas."
None of the premises for excluding Hamas hold up. The delegitimation of Hamas is simply a pretext for continuing the siege, which is itself a crime against humanity.
If you are against the siege, you have to be against the exclusion of Hamas.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Anti-Empire Project is sharing tonight a resource on Anti-Palestinian Racism.
The goals are a) to recognize this as a distinct type of racism and b) to make it easy to identify when an argument or claim is based in such racism and not good faith.
Anti-Palestinian racism is distinct from Islamophobia and it is distinct from Anti-Arab Racism, despite overlap and the importance of both of those racisms.
All asymmetries of rights when discussing Israel/Palestine are symptoms of anti-Palestinian racism. Examples:
An attempt to spell out anti-imperialist moral truism. Or, why Western dissent against Chinese or Russian crimes does not make the world a better place. A thread.
As usual, the starting point is Chomsky. One of his moral truisms is that it is only moral to campaign on issues you can affect.
This moral truism is implicitly about the politics of dissent. A dissenter goes against the common sense of their own society or against the government policy of their own country. Chomsky is all about dissent.
So, after reading Losurdo's book on nonviolence, a thread on why Hannah Arendt is no guide for leftists (probably most of you know this, so skip if you already knew).
Arendt is famous for a phrase, "the banality of evil", and for the analysis of "totalitarianism". The phrase is of course clever but by now confuses more than it helps, since there are obviously evils that aren't banal and banalities that aren't evil, so whatever.
Totalitarianism is an analysis that has enabled the enemies of equality and the defenders of hierarchy to conflate any attempt at making society more equal with Nazism, because equality and utopias are communism, and communism is totalitarianism, which is Nazism.
No matter how radical your politics are, twitter has made you into a liberal. How?
Definitions: First, radicalism. Political radicalism arises in the 18th century when people around the French and Haiti revolutions take the declaration of rights seriously – which means abolition.
Radicals accepted the right of armed struggle by slaves and the colonized. Radicals are egalitarian. The radical idea is equality of outcomes. Losurdo writes about this very well.
My argument: Chomsky’s most powerful message is anti-imperialism. Containing that message has been a preoccupation of the propaganda system since the 1960s.