Approaching scary, when even a serious poster such as Zizek end their message with this:
"To find a way out, the first thing to do is to fully admit that we are dealing with a true tragedy. There is no simple solution to such a tragedy, except that advocated by Jewish Power and Hamas: the annihilation of the other side."
Approaching scary, when even a serious poster such as Zizek end their message with this:
"To find a way out, the first thing to do is to fully admit that we are dealing with a true tragedy. There is no simple solution to such a tragedy, except that advocated by Jewish Power and Hamas: the annihilation of the other side."
Zizek already stated it: "Either Israel annihilates all Palestinian opposition to its existence OR the Palestinian resistance destroys the nation-state of Israel." The question is reduced to the either/or of which side is forcibly eradicated. That's and awfully cut and dried proposition, to reduce the problem to that question.
BS. There are plenty of Palestinians who say peace. The BDS movement is an example. Absolutely freaked Israel out, so it got its American allies to pass laws shutting it down.
How many Palestinians called for a ceasefire on October 7? How many have called for the unconditional release of civilian hostages?
The BDS will get shut-down because the explicit politicisation of foreign trade and investment strikes at the heart of elite thinking about the global economy. Serious corporate interests are at stake.
And it disturbs the civility of institutions within the West.
that is not the primary reason Israel wanted it shut down however. You certainly are correct about elites, after all, the US would never have joined Mandela's boycott if it weren't for pressure from Afircan-Americans. As for hostages, in fact Hamas itself is calling for that. It is Israel that is unwilling.
Disagree. Washington was playing games with South Africa. The US supported Pretoria during the Cold War. Once that was winding down under Gorbachev the US began preparing for transition to majority rule and began intriguing with all parties involved.
Washington was happy for African-American politicians to posture on the issue. But they would not have been a serious factor in the decisions of consequence. They were allowed to take credit for it.
That's nonsense. A cheap and easy way of implicitly declaring Everyone in Gaza as an enemy combatant--or in the case of infants and young children, a proto-combatant, the old line that "nits make lice"--for the purpose of mounting a "(mass) homicide in Self-Defense" argument.
The Qassam Brigades need to be decisively defeated, and the key to accomplishing that mission is to destroy their underground bases and logistical support network. But there was absolutely no practical military requirement for an instantaneous military response in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. Netanyahu could have given the residents of Gaza 30 days notice to clear out, and made some provision to relocate the elderly and infirm. Those tunnels weren't going anywhere.
There was even less justification for military attacks on the refugee columns. Hamas is simply not militarily powerful enough to take and hold a single square meter of Israeli territory. Now that Hamas no longer has the element of surprise in their favor, they presently lack the capability to even make a second strike inside Israeli territory.
We've sunk past crazy ignorable.
Approaching scary, when even a serious poster such as Zizek end their message with this:
"To find a way out, the first thing to do is to fully admit that we are dealing with a true tragedy. There is no simple solution to such a tragedy, except that advocated by Jewish Power and Hamas: the annihilation of the other side."
Crackpot realism. Where would it be, without reliance on the two-valued proposition?
Define your "it"
Define "the two-valued proposition"
Zizek already stated it: "Either Israel annihilates all Palestinian opposition to its existence OR the Palestinian resistance destroys the nation-state of Israel." The question is reduced to the either/or of which side is forcibly eradicated. That's and awfully cut and dried proposition, to reduce the problem to that question.
Yes but these are facts.
Awful? Yes.
But facts.
No Palestinian could say peace and live.
The Israelis are finally taking them at their word.
BS. There are plenty of Palestinians who say peace. The BDS movement is an example. Absolutely freaked Israel out, so it got its American allies to pass laws shutting it down.
How many Palestinians called for a ceasefire on October 7? How many have called for the unconditional release of civilian hostages?
The BDS will get shut-down because the explicit politicisation of foreign trade and investment strikes at the heart of elite thinking about the global economy. Serious corporate interests are at stake.
And it disturbs the civility of institutions within the West.
that is not the primary reason Israel wanted it shut down however. You certainly are correct about elites, after all, the US would never have joined Mandela's boycott if it weren't for pressure from Afircan-Americans. As for hostages, in fact Hamas itself is calling for that. It is Israel that is unwilling.
Disagree. Washington was playing games with South Africa. The US supported Pretoria during the Cold War. Once that was winding down under Gorbachev the US began preparing for transition to majority rule and began intriguing with all parties involved.
Washington was happy for African-American politicians to posture on the issue. But they would not have been a serious factor in the decisions of consequence. They were allowed to take credit for it.
"No Palestinian could say peace and live."
That's nonsense. A cheap and easy way of implicitly declaring Everyone in Gaza as an enemy combatant--or in the case of infants and young children, a proto-combatant, the old line that "nits make lice"--for the purpose of mounting a "(mass) homicide in Self-Defense" argument.
The Qassam Brigades need to be decisively defeated, and the key to accomplishing that mission is to destroy their underground bases and logistical support network. But there was absolutely no practical military requirement for an instantaneous military response in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. Netanyahu could have given the residents of Gaza 30 days notice to clear out, and made some provision to relocate the elderly and infirm. Those tunnels weren't going anywhere.
There was even less justification for military attacks on the refugee columns. Hamas is simply not militarily powerful enough to take and hold a single square meter of Israeli territory. Now that Hamas no longer has the element of surprise in their favor, they presently lack the capability to even make a second strike inside Israeli territory.
If it were true that no outside intervention were possible, Israel could annihilate Gaza.