Skip to main content

The World Since 7 October

A long [6400 words] but good summary and analysis by Adam Shatz. Here is a selection:


– The United States has given its imprimatur to Israel’s regional hegemony.


– When Trump made plain that he wanted Israel to stop bombing [Iran], Netanyahu had little choice but to acquiesce.


– Israel also appears to be pursuing a long-range plan to weaken, if not to render defenceless, the other states in the region, so that none is in a position to challenge it. The instability and precariousness of such an order are evident to American and European politicians, but they prefer to remain discreet about them for fear of being accused of sympathy for Hamas or antisemitism.


– For all Trump’s triumphalism, the ‘twelve-day war’, far from having ended Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon, may accelerate it.


– Israel now has control of the airspace over Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria – almost boundless room for manoeuvre – and has always favoured unilateral military assertion over diplomacy.


– Netanyahu and the Israeli political establishment don’t seem concerned about these diplomatic costs – or about the collapse of the country’s moral reputation as a result of the wanton destruction of Gaza. They simply shrug off the criticisms; after all, they say, the world is against us. In fact, Israel still has the governments of the US and most of the West behind it.


– It hasn’t escaped Palestinians’ notice that Israel’s strikes against Gaza have been far less precise than its strikes against Iran and Lebanon: a measure of the contempt in which they are held.


– Gilber Achcar wrote of the 1948 Nakba: ‘It cannot fairly be said that the “uprooting” of the Palestinians ... has been exceptionally extensive or cruel.’ Measured against the standards of the French army in Algeria, ‘the Israeli army pales.’ As Achcar admits in his new book, The Gaza Catastrophe, it wouldn’t be possible to write these lines about Israel now. The catastrophe of the last two years far exceeds that of the Nakba, and ‘deserves the strongest Arabic name for catastrophe: Karitha’.


– After the 1967 war, Isaac Deutscher recalled a German phrase, ‘Man kann sich totsiegen’ – ‘you can triumph yourself to death.’ The same is true of Israel’s wars today, and for largely the same reasons.

– Israel has set itself on a trajectory for which it has no solutions other than a final solution, and final solutions aren’t easy to implement.


– As Sayigh sees it, ‘in a world where the right and far right are on the rise everywhere’, Israel has found it easier to evade criticism since it discovered a growing number of admirers in the West, Latin America and India of its model of ethnonationalism, racial discrimination and reliance on brute force.


– 'In a little over three years, the most influential institutions in the worlds of academia, the arts and multinational finance had evolved from fully genuflecting in front of zealous young activists to trying to silence and crush them. The difference, obviously, was the cause these activists had taken up'.


– As Mamdani came under attack, ‘liberal’ centrists in his own party were nowhere to be found, and some echoed Republican invective. Yet he held his ground, supported by a team that included both Jewish and Muslim leftists. He was the number two choice of Jewish Democrats, an encouraging sign that, for a good portion of Jewish New Yorkers, Mamdani’s anti-Zionism isn’t a problem.


– Achcar says that the 7 October attack was ‘the most catastrophic miscalculation in the history of anticolonial struggle’. A strong case can be made that it has set back the Palestinian struggle for the foreseeable future.


– For Israeli Jews, Hamas’s attack was not merely shocking, it was unfathomable – a regression to the intercommunal violence of the British Mandate. But, as Walter Benjamin wrote, the ‘current amazement that the things we are experiencing are “still” possible ... is not the beginning of knowledge – unless it is the knowledge that the view of history that gives rise to it is untenable.’


– The authoritarian, increasingly fascist drift of Israeli politics, which long predates 7 October, is horrifying but not surprising.


– It’s extremely difficult to imagine the dismantling of Israel’s apartheid system, or to imagine a serious challenge to its domination emerging anytime soon. In a world of rising authoritarianism and ethnonationalism, where the rule of law has all but crumbled, the brutal, pitiless state run by Netanyahu looks more like a pioneer than an outlier.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Qarmatians (Al-Qaramita)

By Nadeem Mahjoub Documentary film-makers G. Troeller and M. C. Defarge once asked a cabinet minister in South Yemen, why socialistic ideas were so readily acceptable in that part of the Arab world. He replied: “Because we have been communists for a thousand years! My mother was Qarmatian.” Official Muslim scholars and clerics, and many so-called moderates (whether individuals or groups) oppose sedition ( fitna ). Tensions and contradictions in society should be solved peacefully and even if the ruler was unjust and impious, it is generally accepted he should still be obeyed, for any kind of order is better than anarchy and sedition. “The tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one year’s tyranny exercised by the subjects against one another.” Revolt was justified only against a ruler who clearly went against the command of God and His prophet.” 1 Here we look at not what happened in the minds of people who call for calm, oppose dissent and preach the re...

Capitalism

Some of this reminds me of how five or six years ago in a class of seven students in a UK elite university three of them (two Germans and one British) were in favour of a "benevolent dictator" (in the Arab context). The bloody horrors of Pinochet showed how capitalism will react when it's threatened
"If you don't attack the economic power of the elite, soon or later it will attack you." That's what the Arab uprisings, for instance, were unable/failed to do. K for Karl – Revolution (episode 3)
"A second position argues against transition, which is transitology itself. It is well known—especially among economists—as the sudden mobilization of a considerable mass of experts who are generally foreigners,generally Western, who come to preach the good word and to propose ready-made models of democracy. The science of the transition has become a financial windfall, a market. And the word transition has of course become a reflex of language, a term of reference, a call for tenders ( appel d’offres ) to which the whole society was supposed to respond.  Consequently, the reticence that one can express is the following: our history is framed, transition is a heteronomy. Every democratic revolution is henceforth supposed to take a unique, imposed path, which is, at the same time, indistinctly democratic and liberal (or neoliberal). A more or less non-“negotiable” package.  It is necessary to highlight the imposed character (and imposed from the outside) of this coming to t...
"In the same way that Robinson [Crusoe] was able to ob­tain a sword, we can just as well suppose that [Man] Friday might appear one fine morning with a loaded revolver in his hand, and from then on the whole relationship of violence is reversed: Man Friday gives the orders and Crusoe is obliged  to work. . . . Thus, the revolver triumphs over the sword, and even the most childish believer in axioms will doubtless form the conclusion that violence is not a simple act of will, but needs for its realization certain very concrete preliminary con­ditions, and in particular the implements of violence; and the more highly developed of these implements will carry the day against primitive ones. Moreover, the very fact of the ability to produce such weapons signifies that the producer of highly developed weapons, in everyday speech the arms  manufac­turer, triumphs over the producer of primitive weapons. To put it briefly, the triumph of violence depends upon the pro­duction of a...
Varoufakis "speaks of how great it was to have the support of Larry Summers, Norman Lamont, and other figures on the Right, but it was support for whom, for what, and in whose class interests? Class analysis is far from the foreground of the picture sketched out here. Closed rooms and class war

US

 Written in June: The candidate who emerged from this jumble of discontent was the man who promised to do the least. His party is now preparing to give us a national election that will be little more than a referendum on the hated Donald Trump. Finally we have a climate in which the American public would unquestionably choose dramatic change were it offered to them, and the party of change has contrived to ensure that it will not be offered. Instead our choice is between two elderly and conservative white men, both with a history of stretching the truth, both with sexual harassment accusations hanging over them, and neither representing any possibility of energetic democratic reform. The old order has been miraculously rescued once again. Such is the climate of opinion in America that, with the right leader, remarkable things would be possible. Instead we are presented with Joe Biden, an affable DC veteran with a hand in many of the defining disasters of the last 30 years: worker-c...