Guest post: The manichaeism of oppressor vs. oppressed
Originally a comment by Papito on Transing sisterhood.
The manichaeism of oppressor vs. oppressed cannot be explained rationally. It is a form of religion. All that is good is on one side; all that is bad is on the other side, and we can always tell them apart. For folks who scream about the sex binary, they sure do like their binaries.
Was Adolf Hitler an oppressor or an oppressed?
When Adolf Hitler met with the Mufti Amin al-Husseini of Jerusalem and they made common cause to kill all the Jews in the Levant, was Hitler working in favor of the oppressor or the oppressed? How about the Mufti?
When al-Husseini accepted 750K DM a month for the purposes of exterminating Jews, was he an oppressor or was he oppressed? When Himmler praised the Mufti’s efforts in doing so, was Himmler an oppressor or an oppressed?
Hamas is pursuing the exact same goal – eradication of Jews from the Levant – that Hitler paid the Mufti to pursue, and which Himmler congratulated al-Husseini for doing. It is a continuation of the Nazi goal, and the same Muslim Brotherhood which helped al-Husseini escape arrest after WWII gave birth to Hamas. They still have the same beliefs, which precede the establishment of Israel:
It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries… . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.
-Al-Husseini, November 1943
How very oppressed he sounds.
More pertinent to the current conflict than events in 1943 is the Israeli assault on Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank this summer. Here’s a press release from the United Nations:
I think both sides (Hamas and the Israeli government, particularly Netanyahu) are pretty much equally reprehensible. I feel for the people stuck in the middle.
Re the attack in Jenin: per Wikipedia:
A report from Reuters, dated July 5, says:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-signals-jenin-operation-close-completion-10-palestinians-dead-2023-07-04/
Amy, Hamas deliberately targets civilians. Hamas embeds itself among civilians, exposing them to harm, and steals aid meant for them. Hamas will never accept a two-state solution. Hamas wants to impose an Islamist theocracy. Hamas is truly genocidal.
I hold no brief for Netanyahu, but no. The Israeli government is nothing like Hamas. There is no comparison.
Why are there even still “refugee camps” in Gaza after these many years and the billions of dollars of international aid? Hmmm, rhymes with “Gamas”, I think.
All it takes is a minor shift in demographics (probably the Ashkenazi dropping below a critical threshold) and Israel will be going full on Joshua on what remains of the Palestinians. It’s in their mythic tradition and identity. They’re just another flavor or Middle Eastern religious conservatives and only differ from Hamas in that they’ve got European Jews living there, people who’ve actually had to learn to live with neighbors that hate them over many centuries.
That said, I think depopulating Gaza is the only sensible (while still immoral) thing to do. Too dangerous to let that area continue to exist within the state’s borders.
@TheDude:
Well there aren’t. They are towns/cities like other towns/cities in the region. They might have started off as tented encampments for Palestinians fleeing the 1947/1948 war, but decades ago they turned into normal towns with normally constructed houses.
The use of the term “refugee camps” by the BBC and others in the mainstream media is bizarre. I guess its use in phrases like “Israel strikes refugee camp” (instead of, say, “Israel strikes Hamas stronghold”), helps to paint Israel as the aggressor.
Remember: triangulation is a simple tactic for appearing to be the enlightened adult in the room who is above the fray. Endorsing a golden mean wins social standing.
Lady M @# 4:
The people of the Levant have chosen a rather unfortunate piece of real estate to try to live on and call their own. The Arabic word for ‘Palestine’ is ‘Felastin’ which sounds to me to be likely to equate those people to the Philistines of the Old Testament, though there is I understand dispute over that. But their territory is the ‘promised land’ of the Jews, who happen to be by their own documented and agreed account ‘God’s chosen people.’ The said territory is also smack-bang on the junction of the roads linking the Eurasian landmass to Egypt and the rest of Africa. So it has historical form.
The Hamas fanatics are also using their own fellow Palestinians as human shields in their war with the Israelis. So, many outcomes are possible, but the worst will be nuclear powers getting involved (Iran and Israel, each rather coy and secretive on the subject of their own nuclear capabilities for starters) and the whole thing rapidly spiralling out of control.
Hamas could be given pause by the Israelis announcing that the remains of Hamas fighters killed in action will be placed in steel coffins, the whole lot topped up with pig shit, and then dropped into the deepest ocean or sea available. That would render each of them unfit to enter Paradise and claim their allocation of 72 lovely virgins. So they are each carrying round in their heads the seeds of their own neutering.
Worth a try, surely.
Look up Israel’s Wikipedia section under ‘miscegenation’ and wonder about all this racial purity shit… Support their right to defend themselves but they’re pretty damn racist.
@Omar:
It’s been tried. For example by the Russians, who after the Moscow theatre siege buried the terrorists in shrouds made from pig skin, and who have done similarly with Chechen rebels.
And the Israelis seem to have seriously considered hanging bags of pig fat in buses, such that a suicide bomber would then splatter themselves with it.
Not sure this sort of thing has any real effect, the Muslims can simply invent a doctrine that the glory of the martyrdom outweighs the knavish tricks of the infidel.
Coel: Not sure this sort of thing has any real effect, the Muslims can simply invent a doctrine that the glory of the martyrdom outweighs the knavish tricks of the infidel. That would have to be at the expense of severely weakening the doctrine. Remember that religious doctrine has to appear to be divinely inspired if it is to have any force. Otherwise, it is just made up, not by saints or equivalents, but just by common-or-garden priests and preachers.
@Omar:
I wouldn’t see it as weakening the doctrine, it is a bigging-up of martyrdom (which they need to do, since being a Hamas fighter who engages the Israelis is pretty much a suicide mission; nearly all of the Oct 7th attackers then died in gun battles once the IDF arrived, and that was always the intent, they had no plan of withdrawing back to Gaza).
Indeed, they already promise martyrs that, not only are all their sins instantly forgiven, not only do they escape barzakh (judgment/purgatory), going straight to paradise, not only do they get the virgins to marry, but they also get to pick seventy of their family members who then also go to paradise not hell (regardless of their sins) — hence making matrydom pretty much a moral obligation to ones family.
Do you think they’d allow a little pig skin and pig fat to dent this message?
I met a young Iranian Muslim man (and in Iran itself, a few years back) who told me that his mother was always at him to attend prayers regularly at the local mosque, and he also told me that he attended just enough to keep her quiet on the subject. So I doubt he would ever have made an Islamist, or a suicide bomber: not nearly fanatical enough. But a well-publicised and inevitable burial in pig shit, using all the resources available to governments who want to be seen by their electors to be taking the protection of their citizens’ safety seriously, would likely send a powerful warning to the fanatics in their national populations. Those same Muslims are the ones most likely to take their religion and its prescribed beliefs most seriously. Could scare the bejasus out of them.
NB: This issue is well-discussed at https://www.history.com/news/osama-bin-laden-body-burial-ocean
You mean like the Mormons do every time their doctrine is inconvenient? Or the Catholics, when the world modernizes and they have to?
I’m not saying Muslims would; the only Muslims I’ve known are mostly secular and do ceremonies for the sake of tradition.
iknklast:
The French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) came up with the best explanation of religion that I have yet encountered. He gave it a functional basis, summarised thus:’believing is the means to belonging.’ Religion is a social glue, and in any religious ceremony, the group worships itself. eg, The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) never died, but flew off to Paradise on the back of a flying horse name of Buruq. The wackier the doctrine, the more special it makes the believers feel. As a believer, one is in a pretty exclusive club.
When I was a young trainee soldier, I was assigned to a hut along with about 15 other trainees; of all faiths and creeds. Naturally, there was a lot of discussion, particularly of comparative religion: ie which of our religions was best. The bloke assigned to the bunk next to mine was Tony, a Catholic. I was then an Anglican. Responding to a question on some theological point or other, Tony said: “I’m not sure what we believe on that.”
Bingo.! Instant enlightenment.! If I had been a Buddhist, it would have been meant a lot: maybe the start of a brilliant career. Could have finished up bigger than Chief Mormon Joseph Smith even, with my own Book of Revelation.
When you don’t know what you believe, you are right on a different level. Whether it is reached on the escalator going up, or the one going down, is a tough one to answer.