An aspect of South Africa's liberation struggle as practised by the ANC which Peter overlooks is that apartheid was intended to de facto enslave or render Indigenous Africans subservient rather than pursue their expulsion or extermination, unlike the Zionist model which lends greater urgency to Palestinians attacking and terrorising Zionist occupiers(including individually oft indistinguishable supporters of ethnic cleansing or genocide, namely so-called civilians)as a preferred modality of resistance. A discussion between Peter and a representative or supporter of Hamas or Within Our Lifetime would be usefully morally and intellectually challenging and an appropriate opportunity to foreground the armed resistance sector of Palestine's liberation movement. A genocide-supporting rabbi or IDF gunman would of course be as interesting an opportunity for clarity.
Read the Goodwin essay that Beinart cites: "How the ANC held the line against targeting civilians." White non-combatents in S. Africa were not targeted, NOT, as you state, because conditions were less "urgent." Major African resistance members made a decision not to target whites in the general population because they deemed it consequential for the success of resistance to apartheid that non-Africans be included in that resistance. It is also, arguably, the case that violence against non-combatents is corrosive for resistance groups, and in addition, that moral claims are strategically justified. See also Eqbal Ahmad: "[The ANC's] outlook and organizational style was deeply influenced by Communist Party traditions, which emphasize the centrality of politics in struggles for liberation... and avoidance of appeals to race, religion, and ethnicity." p. 78, Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad.
Hi - if you look at the section Sources Cited.. at the bottom of the transcript, you'll see a link, "How the African National Congress held the line against targeting civilians" - to a paper by NYU professor Jeff Goodwin on S. African resistance to apartheid - “The stuggle made me a nonracialist: Why there was so little terrorism in the antiapartheid struggle."
To clarify: There is more reason for Palestinians to engage in violent resistance and non-differentiation between uniformed and ununiformed occupiers and it is the urgency of such action for Palestine's cause that I focus on, not on any spuriously inferred diss on the ANC. Incidentally other SA resistance groups chose a more confrontational stance as I recall. While no doubt any commission of violence is impactful and often corrosive to individuals, arguably nothing is more corrosive to an organisation, let alone a liberation front than defeat. Unlike in SA's case, I do not see meaningful internal resistance to Zionism among Palestine's Jewish occupiers. Also, unlike in SA's case, the globally distributed white bourgeois regimes are largely not driven by either domestic racial considerations or post-colonial guilt, therefore I hold out no hope for moral suasion convincing Palestine's occupiers or foreign enablers to accept return of refugees and majority rule.
I agree, very few Jewish Israelis care about the devastation that Israel is visiting on Gaza and Gazans, and fewer still are anti-Zionist. I agree, too, there’s little evidence of “post-colonial guilt” in Western societies. Yet I believe an argument can still be made for those resisting Zionism (and neo-colonialism generally) to act morally. I have seen, in my lifetime, an enormous increase among young US Jews (as well as non-Jews) in knowledge and concern about the circumstances of 1948; increase in interest in the earlier history of Palestine; and parallel increase in contesting the existential crisis facing Palestinians now. This reversal of blindness is significant even if its impact has been terribly limited.
I again urge you to read the Goodwin essay on S. Africa. You are right, as Goodwin points out, that other South African groups resisted differently from the ANC. I don’t believe they were less confrontational, as you write, but they were not anti-racialist.
Last - I looked today at photos of child victims of Israeli attacks. The maiming of Palestinian children by Israeli forces is deliberate, I think, not “unintended” as the Israelis undoubtedly claim… Does fighting Zionism justify the use of similar tactics by the resistance to Israel? …tactics that – against Palestinians – are horrific proof of the inhumanity of the IDF… You state that Palestinian resistance can (and should?) include “non-differentiation between uniformed and ununiformed occupiers”… Aren’t infants obviously “ununiformed”? Are deliberate attacks on these “occupiers” justified? In my moral universe, these are atrocities, whatever the victims' ethnicity and religion. A separate question is whether such tactics against the “ununiformed” actually – in reality - further the cause of justice for Palestinians.
Thank you Julie, for your considered reply. Can we all unpack or deconstruct the concept "morally" or "morality"?I am sure there are varying definitions, perhaps rendering morality or "ethics" as substantially unactionable concepts or an unviable basis for current modes of political let alone armed discourse. See the claiming of moral as in "majority" or its current self-righteous Republican iteration or the "moral claims" of Zionism as based in the Shoah.
I would never presume to tell Palestinians that they "should" wage war against ununiformed occupiers but that pressure on them to refrain from evidently effective tactics(as practised by Zionists)is an arrogant opining on a people's and movement's right and obligation to respond to the clear and present danger before them rather than being hamstrung or dissuaded from a course of obvious atrocity, but one both ethically defensible as parity-seeking and clearly politico-militarily effective at recentring Palestine's cause and spurring on armed solidarity interventions from some of Palestine's neighbours both near and far as well as reducing the zone of current active Zionist "civilian" colonisation. Justice will be seized or imposed, not granted by occupiers. Therefore Palestine's collective agency will determine the final outcome. I think the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising must be considered as context for the Gaza Ghetto Uprising, especially within the context of Jewish-led and even valuably Jewish-centred discourse regarding Palestine.
I have to say that I don't agree that moral considerations are empty. You're completely right that they very often justify terrible actions, by immoral actors. And also that it's very difficult to agree on what it means to act morally, ethnically. But I think that honest attempts have been made to define moral standards - ones free of the biases of those who have been politically and militarily successful. In fact, if we speak of "immoral actors" as I just did, or goals, aren't we basing that on some standards? And you yourself speak (above) about actions that are "ethically defensible..." Also, in the context of what's "ethically defensible" - I wonder what you mean by "parity-seeking." IS parity an ethically justified goal? No matter what the first action is? I also wonder how the context of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising applies? Thanks!
And thank you too. What are Hamas' or PFLP's ethical standards and are we prepared to accept them? In the face of Palestinians' certain annihilation, how can we not accept the standards of Palestine's only defenders, certainly of any comparably meaningful degree of impact? I generally defer to the ethical standards of the most radical/effective yet personally politically acceptable grouping or wing of a given national or class or other identity community's liberation movement. Khmer Rouge and Red Guards nor Stalinists or others claiming to be such a radical wing not passing my sense of discernment. Parity seeking is meant as balance of deterrence/escalation to deescalate(a la Putin)but also relatedly as psy-ops so the enemy feels as unsafe as the targeted ethnos. Morally, we "we" do not condemn the Warsaw rebels but laud their self-defence in extremis, even if only notional self-defence by refusing victimhood. Just so in my view the tremendously "brave"(whatever bravery means to each one of us)for going up against what they seemingly at least half expected would be their armed adversaries-at least primarily- rather than ravers dancing on Palestinian graves within earshot of the Gaza concentration camp/ghetto.
In the fall of 2023, before Oct 7th, Jesse Rosenfeld said the Israel peace movement was a few hundred people. It's probably even fewer now.
And ... if Israeli Jews regard all Palestinians, men, women, children, babies, as terrorists, no one should be surprised if Palestinians regard all Jewish Israelis as soldiers, ex-soldiers, or future soldiers.
Last Friday, at the weekly vigil in front of the Israeli consulate in Toronto, a man from Africa asked me why I was there. The answer: Because I'm Jewish [not in spite of being Jewish]. I have a dog in this fight. It's my problem, my business.
After South Africa accused Israel in court, someone – can't remember his name, alas, I think he teaches international studies at the University of Alberta – was asked why it was South Africa that did it. He said that South Africa has an independent foreign policy. He delicately refrained from saying that Canada does not.
An aspect of South Africa's liberation struggle as practised by the ANC which Peter overlooks is that apartheid was intended to de facto enslave or render Indigenous Africans subservient rather than pursue their expulsion or extermination, unlike the Zionist model which lends greater urgency to Palestinians attacking and terrorising Zionist occupiers(including individually oft indistinguishable supporters of ethnic cleansing or genocide, namely so-called civilians)as a preferred modality of resistance. A discussion between Peter and a representative or supporter of Hamas or Within Our Lifetime would be usefully morally and intellectually challenging and an appropriate opportunity to foreground the armed resistance sector of Palestine's liberation movement. A genocide-supporting rabbi or IDF gunman would of course be as interesting an opportunity for clarity.
Read the Goodwin essay that Beinart cites: "How the ANC held the line against targeting civilians." White non-combatents in S. Africa were not targeted, NOT, as you state, because conditions were less "urgent." Major African resistance members made a decision not to target whites in the general population because they deemed it consequential for the success of resistance to apartheid that non-Africans be included in that resistance. It is also, arguably, the case that violence against non-combatents is corrosive for resistance groups, and in addition, that moral claims are strategically justified. See also Eqbal Ahmad: "[The ANC's] outlook and organizational style was deeply influenced by Communist Party traditions, which emphasize the centrality of politics in struggles for liberation... and avoidance of appeals to race, religion, and ethnicity." p. 78, Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad.
Which Goodwin essay?
Hi - if you look at the section Sources Cited.. at the bottom of the transcript, you'll see a link, "How the African National Congress held the line against targeting civilians" - to a paper by NYU professor Jeff Goodwin on S. African resistance to apartheid - “The stuggle made me a nonracialist: Why there was so little terrorism in the antiapartheid struggle."
To clarify: There is more reason for Palestinians to engage in violent resistance and non-differentiation between uniformed and ununiformed occupiers and it is the urgency of such action for Palestine's cause that I focus on, not on any spuriously inferred diss on the ANC. Incidentally other SA resistance groups chose a more confrontational stance as I recall. While no doubt any commission of violence is impactful and often corrosive to individuals, arguably nothing is more corrosive to an organisation, let alone a liberation front than defeat. Unlike in SA's case, I do not see meaningful internal resistance to Zionism among Palestine's Jewish occupiers. Also, unlike in SA's case, the globally distributed white bourgeois regimes are largely not driven by either domestic racial considerations or post-colonial guilt, therefore I hold out no hope for moral suasion convincing Palestine's occupiers or foreign enablers to accept return of refugees and majority rule.
I agree, very few Jewish Israelis care about the devastation that Israel is visiting on Gaza and Gazans, and fewer still are anti-Zionist. I agree, too, there’s little evidence of “post-colonial guilt” in Western societies. Yet I believe an argument can still be made for those resisting Zionism (and neo-colonialism generally) to act morally. I have seen, in my lifetime, an enormous increase among young US Jews (as well as non-Jews) in knowledge and concern about the circumstances of 1948; increase in interest in the earlier history of Palestine; and parallel increase in contesting the existential crisis facing Palestinians now. This reversal of blindness is significant even if its impact has been terribly limited.
I again urge you to read the Goodwin essay on S. Africa. You are right, as Goodwin points out, that other South African groups resisted differently from the ANC. I don’t believe they were less confrontational, as you write, but they were not anti-racialist.
Last - I looked today at photos of child victims of Israeli attacks. The maiming of Palestinian children by Israeli forces is deliberate, I think, not “unintended” as the Israelis undoubtedly claim… Does fighting Zionism justify the use of similar tactics by the resistance to Israel? …tactics that – against Palestinians – are horrific proof of the inhumanity of the IDF… You state that Palestinian resistance can (and should?) include “non-differentiation between uniformed and ununiformed occupiers”… Aren’t infants obviously “ununiformed”? Are deliberate attacks on these “occupiers” justified? In my moral universe, these are atrocities, whatever the victims' ethnicity and religion. A separate question is whether such tactics against the “ununiformed” actually – in reality - further the cause of justice for Palestinians.
Thank you Julie, for your considered reply. Can we all unpack or deconstruct the concept "morally" or "morality"?I am sure there are varying definitions, perhaps rendering morality or "ethics" as substantially unactionable concepts or an unviable basis for current modes of political let alone armed discourse. See the claiming of moral as in "majority" or its current self-righteous Republican iteration or the "moral claims" of Zionism as based in the Shoah.
I would never presume to tell Palestinians that they "should" wage war against ununiformed occupiers but that pressure on them to refrain from evidently effective tactics(as practised by Zionists)is an arrogant opining on a people's and movement's right and obligation to respond to the clear and present danger before them rather than being hamstrung or dissuaded from a course of obvious atrocity, but one both ethically defensible as parity-seeking and clearly politico-militarily effective at recentring Palestine's cause and spurring on armed solidarity interventions from some of Palestine's neighbours both near and far as well as reducing the zone of current active Zionist "civilian" colonisation. Justice will be seized or imposed, not granted by occupiers. Therefore Palestine's collective agency will determine the final outcome. I think the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising must be considered as context for the Gaza Ghetto Uprising, especially within the context of Jewish-led and even valuably Jewish-centred discourse regarding Palestine.
Thank you for your reply.
I have to say that I don't agree that moral considerations are empty. You're completely right that they very often justify terrible actions, by immoral actors. And also that it's very difficult to agree on what it means to act morally, ethnically. But I think that honest attempts have been made to define moral standards - ones free of the biases of those who have been politically and militarily successful. In fact, if we speak of "immoral actors" as I just did, or goals, aren't we basing that on some standards? And you yourself speak (above) about actions that are "ethically defensible..." Also, in the context of what's "ethically defensible" - I wonder what you mean by "parity-seeking." IS parity an ethically justified goal? No matter what the first action is? I also wonder how the context of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising applies? Thanks!
And thank you too. What are Hamas' or PFLP's ethical standards and are we prepared to accept them? In the face of Palestinians' certain annihilation, how can we not accept the standards of Palestine's only defenders, certainly of any comparably meaningful degree of impact? I generally defer to the ethical standards of the most radical/effective yet personally politically acceptable grouping or wing of a given national or class or other identity community's liberation movement. Khmer Rouge and Red Guards nor Stalinists or others claiming to be such a radical wing not passing my sense of discernment. Parity seeking is meant as balance of deterrence/escalation to deescalate(a la Putin)but also relatedly as psy-ops so the enemy feels as unsafe as the targeted ethnos. Morally, we "we" do not condemn the Warsaw rebels but laud their self-defence in extremis, even if only notional self-defence by refusing victimhood. Just so in my view the tremendously "brave"(whatever bravery means to each one of us)for going up against what they seemingly at least half expected would be their armed adversaries-at least primarily- rather than ravers dancing on Palestinian graves within earshot of the Gaza concentration camp/ghetto.
In the fall of 2023, before Oct 7th, Jesse Rosenfeld said the Israel peace movement was a few hundred people. It's probably even fewer now.
And ... if Israeli Jews regard all Palestinians, men, women, children, babies, as terrorists, no one should be surprised if Palestinians regard all Jewish Israelis as soldiers, ex-soldiers, or future soldiers.
Is that our moral standard? The Israeli standard?
Last Friday, at the weekly vigil in front of the Israeli consulate in Toronto, a man from Africa asked me why I was there. The answer: Because I'm Jewish [not in spite of being Jewish]. I have a dog in this fight. It's my problem, my business.
Elizabeth - HI! We were at Music and Art together!
I just figured that out..
After South Africa accused Israel in court, someone – can't remember his name, alas, I think he teaches international studies at the University of Alberta – was asked why it was South Africa that did it. He said that South Africa has an independent foreign policy. He delicately refrained from saying that Canada does not.