It's not clear to me from the clip that he was asked any question at all. The question he states at the beginning could plausibly be purely rhetorical.
That said, it would not be surprising if he were to stress the struggle against counterrevolution but had little to say about the development of productive forces. Sison is a Maoist, and Mao and his intellectual descendants are much more voluntarists than they are stagists.
Feels like a bit of a bad faith critique, given that this is an extremely short clip with no context.
at this particular time
That's the thing about tailism, though. It's always bound to a struggle that is of particular urgency or salience at a given time. You can use the same exact words to repudiate any charge of tailism that isn't being made retrospectively, in a history book.
an organization whose primary driving force is Islam
What Islam? A collection of beliefs? A set of believers?
The defining contention of materialism is that ideas are not the primary driver of history. Hakim's post says, without qualification, that Islam is the driving force of the resistance.
The backflips folks are doing in this thread (including obliterating the very distinction between the ideal and the material, which is revisionism) to reconcile these two blindingly obvious, incompatible things are incredible.
That is a materialist analysis of the situation lol because that is what the Palestinians themselves are saying
Self-report (unadorned by any commentary or context, even) is 'material analysis' now? What?
That might be a credible take if, for instance, Hakim's post so much as mentioned material conditions, or Roderic's post was about the engine of history rather than Hakim's post.
Your assessment is totally disconnected both from the content of Hakim's post and from the content of Day's tweet.
What we call "terrorism" is the only means provided to the Palestinians to have a voice. They literally are in a concentration camp.
One point that I think is worth emphasizing with some audiences is that if we are horrified by an alleged atrocity committed by the armed wing of the Palestinian resistance movement, the only thing that can make such resistance and the excesses that may sometimes come with it unnecessary is a range of other options that are actually effective.
So if you want non-violence, do effective non-violence and prove that that it can work. Be the other half of the anti-apartheid movement that makes it possible to some day wind down the violent struggles against apartheid.
Scolding Palestinians about fighting back by the only means left to them doesn't give them any other options. An end to military aid for Israel and a powerful, growing BDS movement potentially could. When the Palestinian resistance has more leverage and power, parties like Hamas and others will recognize that and come to the negotiating table as fighters of national liberation struggles have done in many other countries. But they have to have leverage and non-violent forms of resistance have to be viable and proven, in order for deescalation to be possible.
The insane propaganda we're seeing on this Israeli genocide paralells what we saw after 9-11.
This is possibly an inroad for understanding among people of older generations who understand what historic crimes were committed in the US response to 9/11. Because anyone who was around and old enough then can recognize the similarities in the sound of the imperialist wardrums.
Absolutely. It's a fortunate thing that nowadays we have a greater capacity than ever to break through the propaganda and access that empathy, and hopefully turn it into widespread international pressure that can strengthen the Palestinian liberation struggle.
If you can convince friends and family members to examine the facts with you, you can make progress towards that end— occasionally even in unexpected places.
I've been off of mainstream social media for all of this, so my view is limited. But all of the people I've been talking to regularly IRL, I've been educating or conversing with about this conflict as I educate myself. And so far, across 3 generations, everyone has been pretty receptive to the history and facts, and some are even open to reading a couple books on Palestinian history with me. All of them see the basic justness of the Palestinian cause.
I think there are at least some people within every generation who are still ignorant but could yet receive the truth.
This, exactly. Do I endorse Hamas' entire political program and orientation? I don't know Hamas intimately, or their current internal debates, or whatever, but it's still safe to say no. I'm a secularist, an egalitarian, a socialist, etc., etc. But I recognize— as do the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine, for example— that Hamas currently plays a leading role in the armed resistance to the Israeli settler-colonial project in general and the occupation of Gaza in particular, as well as running all of the basic civil services (such as they exist) in Gaza.
Nearly half of young respondents said they side with the terrorist group that just earlier this month purposefully targeted and slaughtered innocent civilians.
original title: 'An Insane Number of Gen Zers Support Hamas's Slaughter of Innocent Israelis'
This is why I propose (sincerely) that we should stop and discourage using the word 'innocent' in these discussions. The wrongness of murdering an unarmed person, or bombing someone's home, or evicting them from their ancestral lands, or racist portrayals designed to dehumanize, is not conditioned on the innocence of the victims.
And at the same time, true 'innocence', or even civilianity, is in extremely short supply in Israel due to mandatory conscription and the perpetual violence of the illegal settlements as a mechanism of ethnic cleansing, let alone the foundational crimes of the Israeli state and 'softer', less direct forms of complicity and support like taxation or employment in the massive military-industrial complex.
If we feel horror at the most brutal moments of the Palestinian armed resistance, it cannot be because those killed, injured, or otherwise hurt or frightened are innocent. It has to be because overwhelming brutality is horrifying no matter who it targets. But if that's true, it's undeniable that the Israeli patterns and policies of massively disproportionate response and collective punishment are horrors of a much, much greater magnitude than individual, particularly brutal incidents of Palestinian vengeance.
The concept of innocence serves, on the one hand:
- to paper over the unique and extreme military orientation of Israeli society, and absolutely overwhelming participation in the IDF— let alone the wider military-industrial complex and illegal extraterritorial settlement— in Israeli society; and on the other,
- to put conditions on which Palestinians deserve safety, and treat Israel's disproportionate response as just by default— what Israel is doing is right except for how it affects 'innocent Palestinians'.
Under such a frame, the primary aggressor and oppressor in an asymmetric conflict becomes the innocent, passive victim. At the same time, framing 'innocent Palestinians' as collateral damage transforms the primary effect of bombing an apartment buildings into a mere side effect.
The concept of 'innocence' here serves only to obscure the moral and political realities. Let's reject it and correct it when it comes up.
no matter how different a homophone's intensions, they all sound the same to me
I work for a large, global staffing agency and let me assure you, you are already a faceless spreadsheet cell among many, and AI is already a factor in your ability to advance or get noticed at multiple stages in the pipeline
Most parties have at least some meetings, and certainly many events, which are open to the general public. Just attend some, and join the org which is doing the work you most want to be involved in. As for the dangers of cult-like microsects and burnout, maybe why you shouldn't join any, check out this podcast by a bunch of former members of such a party.
Based on these victims' ages and the fact that they weren't in prison, can't we infer that they were in the IDF?
They probably couldn't have been Greta's friends then
Sorry, haven't really followed this. Is the idea of 'the long Corbyn' that somehow he's responsible for alleged anti-Semitism outside his tenure or time in leadership?
He's on a half-informed anti-idpol/politically incorrect kick for the past few years, and combined with his tendency to really stick it to people and actions that he feels lack integrity, it sometimes leads him to engage in insults and boomerisms that ultimately undermine his valid points. It's a real shame because he still has a lot of value to say and he's getting in his own way when he does that.
I love how the questioner in that clip just smiles, nods and walks away instead of further replying, like 'damn, you got me'. He doesn't seem mad about it either— he looks like maybe it's really given him something to think about.
A little bit to my surprise, ol' Norman Finkelstein, in his media appearances since this latest development in the occupation, has refused to condemn Hamas. In his interview with Chris Hedges yesterday, he explained this decision with reference to slave revolts in the US, John Brown, and the Haitian revolution. I think it's a sound comparison.