In celebration of @FranceskAlbs recent standing ovations at both LSE and SOAS, let me highlight the main contributions her Reports have made to the way we understand the genocide of the Palestnian people in Gaza 🧵
.@FranceskAlbs' first and perhaps most important contribution is to put the issue of settler-colonialism front and centre of the discussion of genocide. In essence, genocide is not an accident, but a feature of colonialism; and it is not a rare find in colonial societies
This connection to colonialism is what informs her latest conclusion that colonial genocide does not need to take the form of "mass killing"
.@FranceskAlbs has also advanced the theory of "humanitarian camouflage" - That, as she puts it, Israel's use of int'l legal terminology as been strategically deployed "in such a permissive manner as to gut those concepts of their normativ content".
In other words, Israel's IHL rhetoric advances rather than constrains Israel's abbility to commit genocide. Take for example the rhetoric surrouding "human shields"...
...military use of civilian objects...
...proportionality...
... evauations...
... and the protection of hospitals
.@FranceskAlbs has then pointed out that, in the context of this humanitarian camouflage, Israel's genocidal intent needs to be discerned from what she calls a "totality triple lens".
This means that analysing Israel's actions with regards to Palestinians as a people through the lens of its "humanitarian camouflage" might lead us to believe that no genocide is taking place, rather a normal war...
...Or that looking at Israel's actions with regards to Palestinian land might lead us to believe there's no genocide taking place, rather a military occupation for security reasons...
...Or that looking at Israel's rationalisation of its conduct might lead us to believe there's no genocide taking place, rather an argument for self-defence under international law...
But when one looks at the totality of Israel's actions, through a triple lens, focused on its plans for the land, its attack on Palestinians as a group and its rationalisation of its conduct, the inescapable conclusion of this collective evaluation is indeed genocide
In terms of the totality of the land, Israel's actions are tied to the establishment of a Greater Israel, a colonial and inevitably genocidal plan - not simply a military occupation.
In terms of the totality of the group, Israel is turning Gaza into an "unliveable" geography, not just fighting a war.
In terms of the totality of conduct, Israel's purported objectives (defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages) do not preclude the finding of genocidal intent, given that much of what is done in Gaza is not in line with these objectives
.@FranceskAlbs deserves much credit for making these connections: the relationship between colonialism and genocide, between humanitarian law and genocide, and between decontextualised legal analysis and genocide.
Yesterday she described herself as a chronicler of genocide. While this is definitely one of her great roles, I think she is more than that. She is showing us how to engage with a colonial, racist and warmongering international law in anticolonial, antiracist and peaceful ways
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many accounts have began to erase Palestinian history these past few days. One common take is the equation of Arabization with modern settler colonialism, as if Palestinians were the result of waves of population transfer from the Hejaz, replacing local communities. This is not only wrong, it is also dehumanising 🧵
Pre-modern conquests (like the Arab conquests) often (but not always) involved a change in elites and the establishment of some form of tributary system. In the Levant, this change of elites led the local population to “Arabize” over the centuries.
The original communities of Canaanite descent (the same that gave rise to the Israelites!) were not displaced by Arabs from the Hejaz and replaced. They adopted Arab culture and Muslim religious practices over time.
Listening to people tell me “this is not what happened” reminds me of how I too grew up with a sanitised version of my country’s history, where the Spanish conquest of the Inca led to the creation of a post-racial Peruvian identity, where colonialism and racism play no role 🧵
Powerful cultural forces reinforce this idea. In this narrative, Peruvian indigenous people are the “minorities” that failed to acculturate into our post-racial, Western(ised) society and are thus misguidedly “opposed to progress”
They’re “easy to manipulate” by “radical forces that seek to destroy Peru’s economic miracle through violence”. Peru’s Quechuas and Aymaras can’t possibly protest violently of their own accord bc if they were “smart about it” they’d want to live as “we” Western(ised) Peruvians do
Israel’s post Oct 7 policy has led to:
- 80k displaced Israelis
- Tel Aviv bombarded
- Hezbollah hitting Haifa
- Diplomatic isolation
- Pariah status among Gen-Z
- ICJ/ICC cases
- Downgraded credit ratings
- GDP growth stalled
Unrestrained war has shown it’s obvious uselessness
Anyone who tells you all of this was “part of the plan” or “to be expected” is lying to you. Israel expected to recover what its strategic security doctrine calls “strategic deterrence” - the belief that “teaching the enemy a lesson” is a security imperative.
It’s long been time for Israel to recognise that its strategic security doctrines belong in a different century. Unrestrained force to protect a colonial project in the Middle East does not make Israelis safe.
I’m rly tired of the “what else where they supposed to do” brigade. The main reason why they are comfortable with Israel’s response is because it is happening “over there” where it is acceptable to bomb human beings into oblivion. Nobody would suggest doing this in London or NY🧵
It was patently obvious from the beginning that a broad and intense military response was, even under the most expansive definitions of self-defence, difficult to justify; not just because Israel is unlawfully occupying Gaza but bc of the urban nature of the conflict
Oct 7 was not just a horrific amalgamation of war crimes, it was also a catastrophic policy failure. A failure of Israel’s foundational policy of pursuing the occupation, colonisation and apartheid of Arab land and people as its most important security objective
Re Israel's pager attack (I'm assuming it was Israel?), there’s two separate sets of applicable rules: the Jus in Bello (JIB) asks “was this a war crime?” and the Jus ad Bellum (JAB) asks “was this a violation of Lebanese sovereignty?”
Some initial thoughts 🧵:
In theory, and provided certain conditions are met, it’s possible that an attack like this one could be legal under JIB.
Now, these are strict conditions. We don't know if Israel followed them and given past practice, we shouldn't assume it did
To be legal under JIB, we'd need: 1) an armed conflict 2) the targets were members of Hezbollah's armed force subject you to status targeting 3) precautions were taken to ensure that the targets would be in possession of the pagers and no civilian casualties were anticipated