This kinds of argument is why it is important to understand Israel as a colonial endeavour. There is a reason why the demographics of the area look like this and it is not because of any kind of “Palestinian apartheid” 🧵
Gaza’s current form is the direct result of the Zionist plan to “cleanse” the land of Palestinians. Hundreds of thousands of people were forcefully expelled to Gaza from other parts of Palestine. After Egypt’s intervention, an armistice line separated Gaza from Israel
But these hundreds of thousands of refugees were living sometimes a couple of kilometres away from their old homes and the area was sparsely populated and not under clear Zionist control, so often they could simply walk into Israel and tend their crops or recover lost property
Of course, as an armistice line, there was also military activity in the area. There were frequent clashes between Israeli and Egyptian forces and occasionally Palestinian guerrillas carried out sabotage operations
Israel however treated all of them - the guerrilla fighter and the farmer - as so called “infiltrators” and killed them. To disuade people from crossing into Israeli-controlled land it started to simply destroy Palestinian towns and replace them with Jewish settlements
These areas though were unattractive for ordinary settlement - with the frequent threat of “infiltrators” wanting to sow fields that used to belong to them and now “belonged” to an Israeli settler.
This is why it created the Nahal, acronym for the “Fighting Pioneer Youth”, a paramilitary wing of the IDF that allowed young Israelis to do their military service through the establishment of settlements in the recently conquered frontier-land next to Gaza
These military-base-type settlements are everywhere around Gaza because they were built as a wall to keep ethnically cleansed Palestinians from returning to their stolen lands. And they did this through force, similarly to how Israeli settlers act today in the West Bank
The area around Gaza therefore is usually treated as if it was always “rightfully” “Israel proper”, but the area had very little Jewish population at the time of the Nakba. It was literally settled, much like the Wild West: by people with guns chasing out the original inhabitants
R’oi Rothberg was one of the inhabitants of Nahal Oz, the first Nahal settlement outside Gaza. His job was to deal with “infiltrators”. In April 1956, he saw Palestinians reaping wheat in the settlement fields and rode on horseback to “chase them off”
Before he could get to them he was ambushed by Palestinians and Egyptians who shot him and beat him, killing him. Moshe Dayan, the Israeli chief of staff, attended his funeral and gave a famous eulogy that is sort of like Israel’s Gettysburg address
Dayan admitted from the get-go that the project of the frontier-lands outside Gaza were a colonial settlement project. Israel was “transforming” Palestinian land and villages “where their fathers dwelt”
Dayan went on to describe Israelis as “a generation that settles the land” who needed to be “armed, strong and determined” to deal with the Palestinians it had expelled to Gaza and it called “infiltrators”
It was very clear to Dayan that these Nahal settlements were “a wall” to protect Israel from the consequences of its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
So why is it that there are no Jews in Gaza? Because Gaza is one of the areas Zionists were not able to ethnically cleanse and then colonially settle. Jews were not pushed out of Gaza, rather Egypt prevented more ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by keeping Zionists out of Gaza
The area around Gaza is the wall of human shields and armed pioneer-style vigilantes Israel set up to keep ethnically cleansed Palestinians from returning to their stolen homes and crops.
So, in sum: There are no Jews in Gaza *because Israel is an apartheid state* built on the basis of ethnic cleansing and the colonial settlement of stolen homes and forcefully taken land
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Genocide is not and has never been defined as “killing everyone in sight”. Since 1948 genocide is a crime that can be committed without a single person dying. This popular notion comes rather from exceptionalising the Holocaust’s Final Solution as the only “real” type of genocide
But the extermination camp is unique to The Holocaust not to all genocides. It’s just that popular imagination is so tied up to the image of The Holocaust (and the Holocaust Movie) that we feel anything “less” than The Holocaust can’t be genocide bc it “cheapens” the term
The reality is that it is the other way around. Holding all genocides to the Holocaust’s blueprint (or to any other genocidal blueprint) is a disservice to victims of genocide. Genocide is not a Nazi trademarked process, it’s to the nation-state what cancer is to humans
To give you an idea how the IDF lies, a year ago, The Guardian published a piece quoting an IDF Spokesman that the IDF saw “no difference” between Hamas’ TV network and its military wing. The IDF quickly issued a “clarification” denying this. But now they want to normalise it so:
I agree with @owenjonesjourno here and I’d caution against views that only frame “terrorism” from its problematic uses in the Western authoritarian gaze. These views risk Eurocentrism and the erasure of non-Western experience. Terrorism doesn’t only exist in a West/non-West axis
Indigenous Peruvians talk about the Shining Path in the context of the Manchay Tiempo (the Time of Fear/Terror) and talk about their fight against them as a fight against “the terrorists”. In Argentina, collective memory has framed the Junta’s atrocities as “state terrorism”
Palestinians in the West Bank have every right to call Settlers “terrorists” and to counter accusations of terrorism with evidence of Zionist terrorism too. All of these discourses are not framed in the same problematic West/non-West binary
I can’t believe how incredibly stupid this is. I’m sorry this garbage deserves no scholarly respect. It’s called a *threshold* of harm BECAUSE THERE IS A THRESHOLD. Not every harm counts. If I call an IDF soldier a doo doo head I’m “harming” them, but not in legally relevant ways
Obviously, “shaping a narrative against the IDF” (even if that were what Gaza journalists do - it isn’t) is below that threshold. If Fox had done even the most basic of lit revs he would have come across the ICTY Prosecutor’s Report on the NATO Bombing Campaign of Serbia:
There obviously also is no *DIRECT* causal link between the “narrative” and operational constraints because a tv signal cannot stop a tank. The link is by definition INDIRECT and so journalists are not *directly* participating in hostilities by doing “unfavourable” coverage
I don’t get this viral trend of extremist Zionists sharing long-form testimonials about why they wont go on his show. It’s a bizarro negative-earth virtue signalling where it makes you popular to advertise you care about defending war crimes too much to tolerate any pushback
Yes, he interrupts his guests. Boo hoo, how mean. Are you serious? You’re defending one of the worst atrocities of this century and you’re the victim? Seriously these porcelain dolls would not last a day as Palestinians.
Imagine being genocided for 2 years, literally having your children shot in the head by people looting the underwear of the women they killed to humilliate them. You go on any tv show and before you can even say a word you are asked if you condemn the violence done to them first