Metal Reviews

I am not going to bother telling you why privileged white women wanting the right to vote is not comparable to the palestinian problem, and I'm not going to bother pointing out that by 1989 the Soviet system was toppling like a huge fucking wall of bricks and the massive suffering brought about by its collapse and the adoption of radical neoliberal policies to govern the public sphere could only be called a success in the loosest possible form.

What about the Provisional IRA would you argue was a success, and what about Bobby Sands's hunger strike was a success? People noticed, but what got done? Did the IRA win?

Citing India is just a way of proving historical ignorance, Zad.

The Civil Rights Movement is, once again, not comparable. If you require that I explain why, then I have no idea why we are talking, but I'll touch upon this: The Civil Rights Movement is viewed in the context of an interior matter; the Palestinian situation is viewed by Israel as an exterior matter; if you do not see why that would completely change everything, then I do not know what to tell you.

It was a joke

You're missing my point, which is that worldwide pressure on Israel depends on perception, which depends on how violent the Palestinians are. You're clearly convinced that the only way forward for them is suicide bombings and the like... because that's had so much success so far. Nonviolence may not ever have stopped an invading army in its tracks, fine, but it's done far more than blowing up innocent people has.

oh, so I guess if the Americans had stuck to nonviolence then their revolution might have been a success.

oh, so I guess if the French had stuck to nonviolence then their revolution might have been a success.

oh, so I guess if the Russians had stuck to nonviolence then the czar might have just gone away on his own.

oh, so I guess if the Palestinians had stuck to nonviolence then the militant Zionists might not have forced them off their land in 1948 after being granted 52% of the country by the U.N.

BTW, is it about time I removed the poll from this thread?

Go nuts.

Has anyone reacted positively to your avatar thing, cause I like it.

I like how you say that the collapse of the USSR was a bad thing, but then call the French revolution a "success".

Eh, no, getting moans from the likes of AngelRipper16. Cheers, glad someone likes it.

*shrug* It was a success in terms of what its backers set out to do; that is to say, transfer power from one intelligentsia to another. It wasn't a success in egalitarian terms, but that goes without saying. I assumed you would realize that.

The collapse of the USSR is complicated, but nobody can deny that under the USSR, the poor of Russia were at least taken care of, and now there are 23 million of them starving in the streets, not to mention the horrible economic shape most of Eastern Europe is in today due to their oligarchical leaders' zealous embrace of neoliberal economic principles.

In this particular case, I mostly agree, because of the dependancies setup with respect to Israeli power.

Israeli power is largely dependant on US support in the form of military (and to a lesser extent economic) aid, as well as US political support such as the blocking of UN resolutions. US support to Israel is dependant on US politicians voting on matters in Israel's favor. US politicians are dependant on campaign funding and votes at election time.

Supporting the pro-Israel politicians you have the pro-Israel lobby groups (which aren't a conspiracy, just groups generally on one side of an issue) who will contribute to pro-Israel candidates, fund opponents of candidates who are not sufficiently pro-Israel, and generally attempt to shape the public discourse in favor of Israel through media, advertising and education of those in Government.

Ultimately, however, you have the American public which votes those politicians in. When the American public (and this is slowly changing) finally decides that Israel is the one who must budge in order for this issue to be solved then real progress will be made. It won't be political suicide to speak honestly on the situation and real pressure can be put on Israel. By real pressure, I mean threatening to withdraw aid unless things change. That is the only language Israel understands.

Palestinian violence is a double edged sword in this respect: Yes, it underscores how desperate the situation is for the Palestinians, but it also gives fodder to the pro-Israel side who maintains that Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel has long used Palestinian violence as a device to maintain a stalemate. As long as a stalemate exists, Israel will continue to chip away with settlements.

What the Palestinians need more than headlines is an effective political and media lobby in the US. This is not a revolution.

The French Revolution is not that simple, though, at all. What was intended by Robespierre, Marat, Danton, etc. was a complete transition from absolute monarchy to a fully representative democracy with guaranteed rights for every man, including black people. This culminated in the shortlived abolition of slavery- making Revolutionary France the first white country ever to accomplish such a thing. In many ways it was the most progressive government we've ever seen in the West.

It ended up with the transition to a new intelligentsia, but that was hardly the intention of the revolutionaries. Or rather, there were a whole lot of different currents within it, only some of whom wanted to see an entirely bourgeois revolution. If anything, you might say that the violence in Paris came from the attempts by the Jacobins to eradicate those bourgois elements.

Now, before I seem to much like a liberal "Jacobins=bad" type of dude, I might say that it's also important to remember that far more French people were killed in that time by other European countries including Britain, invading France to try and get their royal-family buddies back on the throne, than were actually killed in the Terror.

I disagree.

I've mentioned before that the media atmosphere in the US is such that non-State violence is demonized relentlessly. That's a true statement at all times; there is no point where non-State violence is ever viewed positively beyond the Iran situation and even that was limited.

As long as the media is set up in such that way, the majority of US citizens will continue to support Israel because it is viewed as a State actor; one that is, for the most part, an ally of the US in a region full of hostiles.

Remember, this is a country where people funneling money to Hamas get 30+ years in jail, and people funneling money to the Jewish Defense League and Kahane Chai can operate openly despite the designation as a terrorist group.

That is true, rio, I suppose it is disingenuous of me to play out the true 'winners' of the French Revolution as the only people who had an opinion, but arguably there are always large differences of opinion within the body of a revolution and the faction that prevails in the very end is always at least partially representative.

Those are merely consequences of the power structure that was laid out - the pro-Israel side can frame the issue however they wish. If the pro-Palestinian side had the media and political clout to frame the debate in terms of, say, Apartheid rather than Terrorism, then that would have a very positive effect on American public opinion, and consequently US policy to the middle east.

I still believe sustained Palestinian violence will continue to undermine any effort to change perception because currently it remains the pro-Isael side's most effective weapon.

You can't compare the Palestinian resistance to the French Revolution. You're not dealing with a government suppressing its people.

So... are you of the opinion that what hurt the African National Congress's effort to buck apartheid off was Winnie Mandela's embrace of necklacing?

The tide of world opinion alone will not, I repeat, will not completely make for the dismantling of Israel. Israel doesn't give a fuck what the world thinks; Israel has nuclear weapons and a free reign to do what it wants. For the most part, the civilized world does not endorse what Israel is doing, and haven't for a long time. Operation Cast Lead only really cemented that impression.

It can't all be cultivating media opinion. The pro-Israel lobby's greatest tactic doesn't work so well these days; people who support them are dropping by the day.

Now, here's a stumper: if the quislings, Fatah, were still the biggest party and Hamas was still a fringe group, would Operation Cast Lead have happened? I say no; Hamas can be cast as a legitimate threat, but Fatah cannot and hasn't been since the late 1980s or 1990s.

If Fatah was still in power, then Operation Cast Lead, which turned a lot of Americans off Israel, would not have happened.

As such: Israel requires a 'legitimate' threat in order to justify to itself the violence it brings into Gaza, but it's altogether possible that said violence would have never occured if Hamas weren't given a modicum of political legitimacy in the first place.

this may sound rambling so if anyone needs clarification feel free to ask for it.

I wasn't using Apartheid as an example of non-violence. I am not arguing for universal application of non-violence (where did you get that idea specifically?) I was using it as an example of how a somewhat similiar situation (suppresed ethnic enclave within a country) was viewed in a completely different way.



Not world opinion. I don't think world opinion matters much. What matters is US public opinion, i.e. the people who elect the people who gave Israel nuclear weapons and F-16s and continue to support them militarily and economically. As I had previously stated, I believe the threat of withdrawing this support is the only language Israel understands.



I didn't say media was the only outlet, it's really the manipulation of the entire political process, including shaping public opinion through the media. I mean part of the reason things are shifting is because of the change in US leadership. Hillary Clinton was the first US politician to openly call for a two-state solution. Obama has used balanced language thus far, and has specifically mentioned Israeli settlements, which cuts to the heart of the matter on the Israeli side. And this is also in part, I believe, to a greater percentage of the public than ever before awakening to the fact that this really is an unfair and oppresive occupation due to media coverage (by media I mean everything, not just corporate media). In a way, the use of violence by the Israelis has undermined their own cause. But this wouldn't have mattered, say, 20 years ago.



I agree it is a vicious circle that goes back for more than a half-century.

I wouldn't count the Israeli expansion movement out just yet, however .. look for a switch from military to economic tactics (i.e. buying property).

EDIT: There is one possible legitimate strategic goal for Palestinian violence: to elicit such a disproportionate military response from Israel that it sways US public opinion against Israel. I think Israel is mindful of this now.

I would attribute that mainly to a lack of evangelical christian connection to South African land as well as white guilt.



I would argue that US public opinion means for absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If you ever look at a number of US opinion polls, and then look at prominent politicians' stances on the same issues, you will almost always notice a massive rightward slant unless you're looking at the opinions of Oklahoma or something.

For that matter, a majority of the US wants a strong public option in health care, but the current public option in the bill is about as strong as a three-year-old with rickets. For the most part, public opinion in the US is not at all important because of the way that politics are conducted in the US.



As for settlements, as with everything there is to think with Obama, his vague sweeping platitudes have nothing whatever to do with his actions.

OBAMA ACTIONS CONCERNING ISRAEL:
1) calling for an end to settlements while maintaining entirely the current US Aid to Israel, not decreasing it even a single dime
2) nothing else

Well yeah, that was the point I was trying to make, heh.

It's the ZOG, man....

Which is kind of interesting, considering that Israel also holds a strong connection for evangelical christians, as well as some collective western sympathy (if not guilt) over Jewish persecution.



Well you're right, no concrete steps have been taken yet. I don't think it will be possible to tell for a bit, as the pressure will likely be applied behind the scenes, and the threat of reducing aid (I hope) is probably the stick being waved. There has been movement on the Israeli side, from a right-wing leader no less. It could be posturing, it could be real.


I guess my real point is just that it's important to know when to use violence, and when not to. In 1948, for example, the Palestinians should have fought tooth and nail.

Benjamin Netanyahu's proposals include leaving all the settlers in the West Bank, allowing them eternal lebensraum if the families expand (which they will, the average Charedim woman has like 8 kids or some crazy shit), calling for it to be completely demilitarized, and demanding that it allow Israel military and airspace access at all times.

Yeah, fuck that.

He still crossed that line, however, and mentioned Palestinian statehood. Of course nobody will accept his proposal, which was ridiculous I agree, but hopefully they have started down a slippery slope. I just don't think in absolutes, I'm sorry.