Loved the article (tho I'm reminded now to go back and finish it) really solid analysis of what's going on in the discourse about supporting Hamas and/or armed struggle. This breakdown here really nails it.
Much appreciation for this discussion. It dawned on me that friends and family here in U.S. bring up the idea of non-violent resistance as a way to end oppression or colonization or racism because they are buying into the false history that Gandhi and MLK did it.
@25:15 ...the necessity, the right and the material conditions through which resistance arises... @11:07 "If we start from that point of view, the world shifts..." So good. I would just add that the upper middle class will never start from such a perspective but will be able to tag along with the revolutionary class that can and will change the world.
I like what you said about students not wanting to think. They want to get on with their lives. Dont we all. But when your conscience is traumatised with what we are seeing every day, you have to think about why this is happening and get to the causes. Some people like to stop that thought process because it feels painful.
I got lots to think about out of this interview. Can I ask that you consider not finishing people's sentences? I do this myself and work hard to restrain myself. Seeing it here is helpful to me in that it reaffirms to me that I want to stop this behavior.
I have one genuine question. You say that civilian casualties on Oct 7, which did include a few children, were from crossfire or the Hannibal Directive. Do you think that no civilians were intentionally killed by Palestinian insurgents? I am not remotely an apologist for Israel. In fact I’m a Jewish activist for Palestinian liberation. I understand the totally militarised nature of Israeli society, especially the colonial settlements in the Gaza Envelope.
So what do you want to know? Are you not bored to chew through this mythological event of 7.oct. endlessly? Why not chew on ANY of the countless massacres, raids and individual killings of Palestonians during the past 100 years. I find it inappropriate to give that one day anymore attention given the CONTEXT BEFORE and especially the CONTEXT AFTER.
Assuming this to be a genuine question, the intentions of the attack can only be for Hamas to give, but my reading of their perspective is that there was the clear primary aim of taking Israeli hostages to bargain with their authorities to release the many Palestinians being held by Israel. One can only assume that such an aim, and the breakout needed to achieve it, could only be achieved through violent means and with inevitable casualties. To this extent at least, there had to be intention, and the distinction between civilians and the IDF is a very blurred one, especially in these particular settlements, so distinguishing purely "military" targets, with "civilians" also often armed, would be difficult or impossible. In fact military hostages seem to have been those most required in the attack and the key hostages now being held. The importance of the now debunked stories about babies and children from the Israelis is that they tried to reinforce the idea that the primary aim of the attack was simply to kill, not to take hostages. That there seem to be very few children that can actually be counted as casualties of the action was a detail that did not support this argument as adequately as the Israeli government and their supporters apparently required. I hope that we are all uncomfortable with such violence, as was the author interviewed on the podcast. Whether or not you feel this is an adequate justification for the October action is a question you will have to address personally, but the podcast and article does try to offer a point of view on this.
@@BroonParker yes, these things I know, and I agree. My question was about the suggestion that all civilian casualties were either crossfire or Hannibal, which I find untenable given evidence to the contrary. The question of whether military age noncombatants in such a highly militarised colonist society should enjoy the same protections as civilians is another matter.
@@michelleberkon_aus P.S. "Hannibal" is a disgusting marketing term. When the "Israeli" government kills "Israeli" civilians, it is not what Hannibal did to himself!
Considering this weekends events.... Seems we have to ask Al Jazeera for all the hostages back... Pay these journalists more so they dont have to moonlight as Hamas terrorists....? Just a tought ...
New. I need more visual to retain interest. Better to just read the article. I support armed resistance. And what articles is he even referring to? Kind of useless.
People saying, "Y'KNOW", 3 or 4 or MORE times in a sentence, TIME after TIME, after fkkkkkkking TIME, can be more difficult to listen to, than people who J U S T S A Y W H A T T H E Y M E A N.
It's important for y'know the same reason that people saying y'know what they mean, is important y'know for everyone. It minimises potential for confusion, makes it easier to follow what people need to say, and for those listening to understand, and prevent getting distracted by irrelevant, wasteful, pointless diversions. Are you pretending that there's some benefit to be had, from someone saying, "Y'know", 3 or 4 or more times per sentence ? If so, I'd love to know what it is, I may be missing out, so tell me please.
@@RobHel And yet you didn't manage to say in what way, anything I said, was unreasonable. Go on then. Be specific if you can please. And if you can't be specific in your criticism, you have to be "unhealthy", in your willingness to criticise, (especially in a condescending way), while you can't be specific. Try again please.
This is a brilliant analysis by Abdaljawad Omar.
We are one day closer to liberation!!!!
👏👏👏😍😍😍❤️❤️❤️🤲🤲🤲🤲
Loved the article (tho I'm reminded now to go back and finish it) really solid analysis of what's going on in the discourse about supporting Hamas and/or armed struggle. This breakdown here really nails it.
Much appreciation for this discussion. It dawned on me that friends and family here in U.S. bring up the idea of non-violent resistance as a way to end oppression or colonization or racism because they are buying into the false history that Gandhi and MLK did it.
and MLK was killed the instant he started becoming radical and growing closer to the more militant parts of the movement
The best summary i have heard in all one place.
Thank you for your service 😊🙏
This is a great analysis and so perfectly stated. I know examples of all the liberal perspectives demolished here.
What was that Malcolm X said about the liberal? ...something about being the biggest threat to liberation...
Very nice analysis. I ponder these same questions, and wonder how so few people arrive at the conclusion that i do...
@25:15
...the necessity, the right and the material conditions through which resistance arises...
@11:07
"If we start from that point of view, the world shifts..."
So good. I would just add that the upper middle class will never start from such a perspective but will be able to tag along with the revolutionary class that can and will change the world.
Cutting through the sea of misinformation and propaganda, many thanks
Very interesting conversation, i saw Abdaljawd on EI the other day and wanted to listen to this since then.
Thanks for this discussion 🎉🎉🎉😊❤
I like what you said about students not wanting to think. They want to get on with their lives. Dont we all. But when your conscience is traumatised with what we are seeing every day, you have to think about why this is happening and get to the causes. Some people like to stop that thought process because it feels painful.
Wow I was thinking about Mondowiess on my way home, and it is the 1st you tube vid on my phone
❤️🇵🇸
I got lots to think about out of this interview. Can I ask that you consider not finishing people's sentences? I do this myself and work hard to restrain myself. Seeing it here is helpful to me in that it reaffirms to me that I want to stop this behavior.
I think Faris was restraining himself.
18:55 follows on from the early kibbutzniks, a.k.a. "Jewish labour", which was to supplant native Palestinians.
I have one genuine question. You say that civilian casualties on Oct 7, which did include a few children, were from crossfire or the Hannibal Directive. Do you think that no civilians were intentionally killed by Palestinian insurgents? I am not remotely an apologist for Israel. In fact I’m a Jewish activist for Palestinian liberation. I understand the totally militarised nature of Israeli society, especially the colonial settlements in the Gaza Envelope.
So what do you want to know? Are you not bored to chew through this mythological event of 7.oct. endlessly? Why not chew on ANY of the countless massacres, raids and individual killings of Palestonians during the past 100 years. I find it inappropriate to give that one day anymore attention given the CONTEXT BEFORE and especially the CONTEXT AFTER.
Assuming this to be a genuine question, the intentions of the attack can only be for Hamas to give, but my reading of their perspective is that there was the clear primary aim of taking Israeli hostages to bargain with their authorities to release the many Palestinians being held by Israel. One can only assume that such an aim, and the breakout needed to achieve it, could only be achieved through violent means and with inevitable casualties. To this extent at least, there had to be intention, and the distinction between civilians and the IDF is a very blurred one, especially in these particular settlements, so distinguishing purely "military" targets, with "civilians" also often armed, would be difficult or impossible. In fact military hostages seem to have been those most required in the attack and the key hostages now being held.
The importance of the now debunked stories about babies and children from the Israelis is that they tried to reinforce the idea that the primary aim of the attack was simply to kill, not to take hostages. That there seem to be very few children that can actually be counted as casualties of the action was a detail that did not support this argument as adequately as the Israeli government and their supporters apparently required.
I hope that we are all uncomfortable with such violence, as was the author interviewed on the podcast. Whether or not you feel this is an adequate justification for the October action is a question you will have to address personally, but the podcast and article does try to offer a point of view on this.
@@BroonParker yes, these things I know, and I agree. My question was about the suggestion that all civilian casualties were either crossfire or Hannibal, which I find untenable given evidence to the contrary. The question of whether military age noncombatants in such a highly militarised colonist society should enjoy the same protections as civilians is another matter.
@@michelleberkon_aus Occupiers are legally culpable for ALL war dead in an illegal occupation, including their own. Period.
@@michelleberkon_aus P.S. "Hannibal" is a disgusting marketing term. When the "Israeli" government kills "Israeli" civilians, it is not what Hannibal did to himself!
Considering this weekends events.... Seems we have to ask Al Jazeera for all the hostages back... Pay these journalists more so they dont have to moonlight as Hamas terrorists....?
Just a tought
...
What?
@@RobHel Where and How!?!?!🤣
@@barryhay2024 What are you talking about, what does Al Jazeera have to do with the detainees?
@@RobHel Some of thier Gazan reporters have been holding hostages....
@@RobHel Thier Gazan Employees held Israeli hostages that had to be rescued by IDF special forces....
New. I need more visual to retain interest. Better to just read the article. I support armed resistance. And what articles is he even referring to? Kind of useless.
People saying, "Y'KNOW", 3 or 4 or MORE times in a sentence, TIME after TIME, after fkkkkkkking TIME, can be more difficult to listen to, than people who J U S T
S A Y W H A T
T H E Y M E A N.
Why is this important to anyone but you?
It's important for y'know the same reason that people saying y'know what they mean, is important y'know for everyone.
It minimises potential for confusion, makes it easier to follow what people need to say, and for those listening to understand, and prevent getting distracted by irrelevant, wasteful, pointless diversions.
Are you pretending that there's some benefit to be had, from someone saying, "Y'know", 3 or 4 or more times per sentence ?
If so, I'd love to know what it is, I may be missing out, so tell me please.
Hope you started to take your meds again because this (whatever this is) is not healthy, my friend...
@@RobHel And yet you didn't manage to say in what way, anything I said, was unreasonable.
Go on then.
Be specific if you can please.
And if you can't be specific in your criticism, you have to be "unhealthy", in your willingness to criticise, (especially in a condescending way), while you can't be specific.
Try again please.
@@johnsomebody1753 dude, this isn't high school debate class! You made an extremely stupid and unnecessary comment. It's not that deep, sweetie
They will pay back them all what they have done to innocent Palestinians.
Really great conversation, I stand with Palestinian people and they will be liberated and free
@@daniellacutter301 soonest !